BEST WARSHIP OF THE WORLD
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Military History
Forum Discription: Discussions related to military history: generals, battles, campaigns, etc.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11832
Printed Date: 20-Apr-2024 at 00:57
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: BEST WARSHIP OF THE WORLD
Posted By: babyblue
Subject: BEST WARSHIP OF THE WORLD
Date Posted: 15-May-2006 at 10:45
|
We've got one on tanks, why not have one on ships? I like warship from all ages (Ironclads onwards I'll first post two rather famous ones:
------------- 
|
), but i've been really into WW2 ones from last year. I'm actually working on a model battleship at the moment, about two third complete, though i think i'll postpone it's completion indefinitely now that i can't be bothered getting back to it.
Replies:
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 16-May-2006 at 08:37
|
The Von Bismark is famous because it has sunk the HMS Hood, before being sunk itself by the British fleet. The Hood itself was poorly built and was plagued by problems all along its construction, there were supposed to be lot more built but they were cancelled because of repeated problems on the design. The Von Bismark was a 41,000 tons warship and couldn't be built bigger because of restriction on Germany. It had 8 360mm canons. Often totaly understimated was the Richelieu class. 2 were built, 2 more were under construction when WWII broke, they were 48,OOO tons warship and showed among the most reliable, their ton speed was 30 knots which was the fastest back then for those type of ships they had 8 380mm canons (compared to the 360mm of the Bismarck) adding to the fast those could fire at the lower point of the ennemy's ships due to their uncommon arrangement. At Dakar, despite the fact the Richelieu was damaged by air raid it routed 2 British destroyers (the HMS Barham and the HMS Resolution) the Richelieu then joined the free French forces and fought in the pacific the Japanese fleet along with the American, it was in Tokyo when Japan signed the surrender. The sistership the Jean Bart wasn't finished when WWII broke and sailed to Casablanca with 25% of it uncomplete and with only one of its 4 canons turret installed, although unfinished it engaged the American ship USS Massassuchets while being bombed by the aircraft carrier "USS Ranger". After several bombs the Americans thought it was done yet it still managed to open fire on the USS Augusta after being too damaged too keep fighting the ship surrendered to "Free France". After the war it was completed in France. Both of those ship then took action in the Suez Crisis.   Back side  Although the Japanese Yamato class was bigger and more powerful the Richelieu class is often considered among the most powerful battleship ever built. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: babyblue
Date Posted: 16-May-2006 at 10:06
Yes yes French and Italian ships in WWII are often overlooked probably because their career wasn't as illustrious as those from other major navies...I know I have totally ignored Italian ships in the past...until I stumped across the Roma...which is just as beatiful as their Ferrari...
   -------------
|
Posted By: babyblue
Date Posted: 16-May-2006 at 10:09
|
why is the new left/right scrolling function so lame? -------------
|
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 16-May-2006 at 11:27
|
HMS Agincourt, probably the biggest dreadnought during the WW I.
HMS Agincourt was ordered by Ottoman Empire before WW I and built in the British docks in order to be sold to Ottoman Empire.Ottoman Empire paid all the money to buy the dreadnought.The money was provided very hardly, by benevolent donations of folk, women even giving away their golden necklaces,bracelets...
But,as the handover date came,and Turkish crew went to England to take the ship, the WW I had begun, and after Churchill's orders, the handover of the ship was halted and decided it would be used in services of Royal Navy. The money wasn't given back to Ottoman Empire.The Turkish name for the ship was Sultan Osman.
This ship, among with HMS Erin(Reshadieh), which also hasn't been handed over to Ottomans,had formed one of the main reasons of Ottoman entrance to the war together with the Central Powers.
Finally,during the WW I, this ship had left the British northern naval bases for several times, and fought in the famous Battle of Jutland, but the ship had balance problems..When its huge cannons were roaring, the ship was terribly swinging, so it had been inactive in the later episode of naval war and the problem couldn't be fixed.It had later been a scrap and probably turned into thousands of razorblades
  ------------- We gave up your happiness Your hope would be enough; we couldn't find neither; we made up sorrows for ourselves; we couldn't be consoled; A Strange Orhan Veli |
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 16-May-2006 at 11:31
When you used the word "Illustrious" in a sentence about Italian navy, another fact came to my mind :)
The name of the British carrier,which made an attack on Italian naval base of Taranto and severely mauled the Italian navy, was HMS Illustrious. ------------- We gave up your happiness Your hope would be enough; we couldn't find neither; we made up sorrows for ourselves; we couldn't be consoled; A Strange Orhan Veli |
Posted By: Dampier
Date Posted: 16-May-2006 at 12:56
|
The Italian navy was pretty darn good and they had by far the best frogmen. French navy in WW2 was either taken into the Royal Navy or destroyed to prevent it falling into Vichy hands by a British fleet.
As for the HMS Agincourt-Kapikulu, sorry but what was Britian going to do. As far as the British view went they would hold onto the ships and if the Ottomans stayed neutral or joined the Allies they would have been given back. But handing over some very nice ships to an enemy which was highly likely to join your opponents would probably earn a top 10 dumb war time moves. They didnt actually immediately seize it and induct it into the RN until the Ottomans had declared war. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 16-May-2006 at 14:36
|
don't like the Bismarck at all it is really just famous for sinking an outdated ww1 ship, at least the Scharnhorst did sunk a British carrier, though the U-boats also managed to do both things. Italian battleships were really crap, no comparison, even the newer Vittorio Veneto class was outclassed by all other new battleships of other countries. my personal favourite is the Richelieu of course, even though the Iowa and perhaps the Yamato were stronger. the Bismarck had 380mm though, not 360mm. ------------- |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 16-May-2006 at 15:19
|
My choice would be the Iowa class and the Missouri in particular. I got to visit the "Mighty Mo" as a child and was impressed by the size of it's 16" shells which were taller than I was at the time.
At over 45,000 tons, 33 knots, 9- 16"/50 guns with modern radar and fire control and many AA guns the Iowas were very capable BBs.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/dafs/BB/bb63.html - http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/dafs/BB/bb63.html
Oops
 ------------- |
Posted By: Isbul
Date Posted: 16-May-2006 at 16:41
For mid XIX cent. I would say the Fench ironclad battleship Solferino, the only two-decked broad side ironclad, which give him impressive firepower
 Well even all those ships above are quiet heavy and had big guns they are far from the best right now, they all are easy meat for modern lighter missle cruisers ------------- 
|
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 16-May-2006 at 16:55
I agree, Italian battleships were not really competitive comparing to others...This quality difference showed itself in battles against the Royal Navy in Mediterranean. ------------- We gave up your happiness Your hope would be enough; we couldn't find neither; we made up sorrows for ourselves; we couldn't be consoled; A Strange Orhan Veli |
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 16-May-2006 at 17:01
I don't really accuse the action, I was giving general knowledge about the ship
But truly, I wouldn't give the ships either, but somehow,a detaining strategy could have been used effectively ------------- We gave up your happiness Your hope would be enough; we couldn't find neither; we made up sorrows for ourselves; we couldn't be consoled; A Strange Orhan Veli |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 16-May-2006 at 17:02
|
The Iowa class was modernized in the 80s as a response to the Kirov class and had Harpoon and Tomahawk ASMs to strike ships as well as phalanx and SeaSparrow for protection against air attack. ------------- |
Posted By: Russian
Date Posted: 16-May-2006 at 17:21
|
I am not that good with Navy, but I would say that either japanese Yamato, or US Missouri, they were the biggest and I would say the most powerful, I might be wrong though. |
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 17-May-2006 at 09:24
|
Only about WWII warships. The battleships I like most are the IJN Nagato class. The best one I think is the USN Iowa class.
I also like heavy cruisers, most of all IJN Mogami class. The Italian Heavy's are also very good looking ships.
An useful link for those interested: http://www.combinedfleet.com - www.combinedfleet.com
|
Posted By: babyblue
Date Posted: 17-May-2006 at 09:48
|
check this out...Nagato, Musashi and Yamato...all in the one picture!!(though the quality of the photo is pretty shocking...  -------------
|
Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 17-May-2006 at 14:36
Currently the best warship in the world would be this beauty
 But as consistent with the rest of this thread I'd have to go with this warship
 |
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 17-May-2006 at 16:54
|
Battleships are so great, so much sexier than aircraft carriers. I think in overall functional ability the iowa class is undisputably the best. But I think the Richeleu and Yamato classes are much cooler looking. ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: bleda
Date Posted: 17-May-2006 at 17:33
|
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ddg-51.htm - DDG-51 Arleigh Burke and http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cg-47.htm - CG-47 Ticonderoga best ships ------------- |
Posted By: aghart
Date Posted: 17-May-2006 at 17:40
|
The best in the world? it has to be the capital ship that made all others obselete the day it entered service!! HMS Dreadnaught the first real battleship. Bismark, Iowa, Yamato, all fine ships but just improvements on the original concept. Aircraft carriers? ok the latest US Navy carriers are fantastic but the first carriers did not change Naval warfare overnight. Submarines? again the latest are magnificent but the first submarines in service did not alter Naval History.
The day HMS Dreadnaught entered service she changed Naval History, changed Naval thinking and concepts, and made every capital ship on the planet obselete. One hell of a claim to fame and unmatched anywhere in the world I think.
HMS Dreadnought (Battleship, 1906-1922)HMS Dreadnought, an 18,110-ton battleship built at Portsmouth Dockyard, England, represented one of the most notable design transformations of the armored warship era. Her "all-big-gun" main battery of ten twelve-inch guns, steam turbine powerplant and 21-knot maximum speed so thoroughly eclipsed earlier types that subsequent battleships were commonly known as "dreadnoughts", and the previous ones disparaged as "pre-dreadnoughts". The swiftness of her construction was equally remarkable. Laid down in October 1905, she was launched in February 1906, after only four months on the ways. Dreadnought was commissioned for trials a year after her keel was laid and was completed in December 1906. Her building, trials and early service were closely watched by the World's naval authorities, including the U.S. Navy's Office of Naval Intelligence, the source of all of our photographs of Dreadnought.  The Picture and article above are from a US publication hence the incorrect spelling!! It's DREADNAUGHT not DREADNOUGHT. ------------- Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines |
Posted By: Turkic10
Date Posted: 17-May-2006 at 21:49
If any of you people get the chance to visit Houston Texas the be sure to tour the Battleship Texas. It's a great example of a WWI design. You'll also feel a bit sorry for the US Marines that served aboard her after you've seen their living quarters. They were packed in there like sausages! ------------- Admonish your friends privately, praise them publicly. |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 18-May-2006 at 13:27
because there was no war when carriers were built en masse. but they made battleships obsolete in '41 at latest and no battleships were built after 43 up to this day except for the Iowa Class, Alaska Class and HMS Vanguard. after all, all those AA cruisers and modern AEGIS cruisers are a waste to you?
ok, so 12 million tonnage of Entente ships sunk in ww1 and 14 million Allied tonnage in ww2 sunk by German U-boats alone and all those hundreds of escort carriers and escort destroyers were just German propaganda i suppose?
it was a new ship design which served as model for all following ships, true, but basically it was just a hyprid between a monitor and an armoured cruiser, so it was not that fundamentally new compared to subs or carriers... ------------- |
Posted By: Dark Lord
Date Posted: 18-May-2006 at 14:46
| Bismark. |
Posted By: aghart
Date Posted: 18-May-2006 at 15:03
You fail to understand my point!!. The thread as I understand it is about a single warship from any period of time that deserves to be called the best in the world!!!. obviously the very latest ships are generally much better than their predessesors, but I repeat NO INDIVIDUAL SHIP HAS EVER CHANGED NAVAL DOCTRINE, THINKING, TACTICS, OR MADE EVERY OTHER CAPITAL SHIP OBSELETE IN A SINGLE DAY EXCEPT HMS DREADNAUGHT!!!!.
Dreadnaught also caused serious headaches for the Royal Navy, because all it's capital ships were made obselete as well and it's huge advantage in numbers vanished when the rest of the world built dreadnaughts. ------------- Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 18-May-2006 at 15:14
|
i think you exaggerate a little, afterall the Dreadnaught was not unsinkable, it was just one or two classes above all other capital ships of the time. and please enlighten us about the fundamental change in naval doctrine and tactics.... ------------- |
Posted By: aghart
Date Posted: 18-May-2006 at 18:04
I never said it was unsinkable but the sheer fact that earlier class battleships were subsequently classed as "pre dreadnaught" does not seem to bring the point home to you.
Doctrine & tactics changed because suddenly a fleet of superfast, super armed & super armoured battleships made every other navy without them vunerable and outmoded. If you cant match them in numbers and design then you have to change your tactics and doctrine to meet the new threat as best as you can.
Also Dreadnaught was not a "hybrid" it is acknowledged in every book and detailed history of naval history as a completely new and revoluntionary design which was copied by every major navy on the planet. NO SINGLE WARSHIP IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD HAS EVER HAD THE IMPACT THAT HMS DREADNAUGHT HAD ON HER LAUNCH.
just accept it Temujin, i'm right and your wrong!!
------------- Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines |
Posted By: Isbul
Date Posted: 19-May-2006 at 03:06
|
The difference between the dreadnaught and pre-dreadnaughts were the big long range main guns.Other things like armor, engines and speed and general desighn of the ship was unchanged. So at all the dreadnaught it wasnt so revolutionary -------------
|
Posted By: aghart
Date Posted: 19-May-2006 at 04:13
HMS Dreadnought (Battleship, 1906-1922)HMS Dreadnought, an 18,110-ton battleship built at Portsmouth Dockyard, England, represented one of the most notable design transformations of the armored warship era. Her "all-big-gun" main battery of ten twelve-inch guns, steam turbine powerplant and 21-knot maximum speed so thoroughly eclipsed earlier types that subsequent battleships were commonly known as "dreadnoughts", and the previous ones disparaged as "pre-dreadnoughts". The swiftness of her construction was equally remarkable. Laid down in October 1905, she was launched in February 1906, after only four months on the ways. Dreadnought was commissioned for trials a year after her keel was laid and was completed in December 1906. Her building, trials and early service were closely watched by the World's naval authorities, including the U.S. Navy's Office of Naval Intelligence, the source of all of our photographs of Dreadnought. Also........
In 1905 the British Admiralty approved plans for the worlds first dreadnaught. The first battleship to be powered by Turbine propulsion system, which gave her a speed of 21.5 knots during her trials, which compared to the earlier battleship speeds of 17 to 18 knots. ------------- Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines |
Posted By: Isbul
Date Posted: 19-May-2006 at 05:09
|
"21-knot maximum speed so thoroughly eclipsed earlier types"
I wouldnt say so.There was pre-dreadnoughts that have the same speed as HMS Dreadnough like the Austro-Hungarian pre-dreadnought of Radetzky class -------------
|
Posted By: aghart
Date Posted: 19-May-2006 at 09:49
The Radetzky class were pre dreadnaughts in style but were in fact commissioned after HMS Dreadnaught, also you have taken the speed quote out of context as it was the combination of guns, armour, steam turbine engines and speed that made Dreadnaught the leap forward that she was. ------------- Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines |
Posted By: Isbul
Date Posted: 19-May-2006 at 11:36
|
I never said that HMS dreadnought was bad ship.In fact it was the most powerfull for some time but there was nothing revolutionary in the ship.It had just long range main guns and that is the main difference with the pre-dreadnoughts. -------------
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 19-May-2006 at 13:08
you still failed to elaborate on the change in tactics, tell me what fundamental tactic change the Dreadnought brought about based ona n actual example (battle)? also, the dreadnaught didn't changed the name of battleships, at least outside Britain...and there was another new class of ships that gave name to a new class of battleships, the USS Monitor and its design was in fact revolutionary because it was the first Iron-clad ship and it had a turret as main armament...the Dreadnaught is also iron-clad and has turrets...there was also the battle of Yalu river, Japanese vs Chinese, the Chinese had 2 battleships who were reputedlycalled the best ships in the pacific and all the Japanese ahd were armoured crusiers and torpedo-boats, yet the japanese won although being seriously outgunnend by the Chinese due to superior tactic. ------------- |
Posted By: Dampier
Date Posted: 19-May-2006 at 13:38
And also to do if I remember correctly with the sheer ineptness of the Chinese commander... -------------
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 19-May-2006 at 13:55
|
so you concede that superior battleships mean nothing? ------------- |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 19-May-2006 at 14:08
The British flush deck aircraft carrier Argus was operational at the end of 1918 and if the war had continued would have been able to conduct attacks on the German fleet that other units of the RN would have found impossible.
------------- |
Posted By: Dampier
Date Posted: 19-May-2006 at 15:41
Confused..is that aimed at me? If it then of course superior battleships mean something but generally as you pointed out superior tactics are the better commodity.
DukeC, for the next gen of aircraft carriers;
http://www.deepangel.com/html/introduction.html - http://www.deepangel.com/html/introduction.html -------------
|
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 19-May-2006 at 16:46
|
Interesting site, thanks Dampier.
Supercavitation sounds like it has possibilties, but I imagine it would be hard on marine organizisms. The pressurewave of a sub traveling at 1000 mph would be bad enough but imagine hitting a whale at those speeds.  ------------- |
Posted By: Dampier
Date Posted: 20-May-2006 at 07:33
Yeah, I have my doubts too, in particular could you fire torpedos or missiles out without breaking the subcavatonic air bubble, if not then enemies with tracking equipment and air to sea missiles would slaughter you. Finally you'd have to be very careful about depth and ejection would again break the subcavatonic bubble (as would a good hit) meaning no escape. Still its an intersting site. -------------
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-May-2006 at 10:53
|
how about Yi-Suns turtle Boats? fopr their time.... ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-May-2006 at 10:54
 what about Yi-Sun Shinsa turtle ships....for their time....revolutionary and most effective.... ------------- |
Posted By: babyblue
Date Posted: 20-May-2006 at 12:41
Here...the beauty of China's next generation FFG...
 -------------
|
Posted By: aghart
Date Posted: 20-May-2006 at 13:23
|
We seem to going off in all directions here, the thread title is not the best I must admit, but as I have said before my understanding is the best warship in the world to be one of any era that made a dramatic impact as soon as it entered service and changed naval thinking, a bit like the tank changing things in land warfare.
I've nominated HMS Dreadnaught and given the reasons why, so rather than picking holes in other peoples choices lets here your choice of the "best" and why? ------------- Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 20-May-2006 at 13:49
|
tanks like carriers were introduced at the end of ww1 but didn't revolutionized warfare until their true value was uncovered in ww2. ------------- |
Posted By: babyblue
Date Posted: 20-May-2006 at 15:11
ah come on...let's not be so serious on a saturday night shall we? We all have our own "best" in our hearts...it may be the most powerful, the biggest, the ugliest, the most revolutionary in your case or the most sexy in my case.
After my explaination, does it not make you think the title of this thread is relevant after all? -------------
|
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 30-May-2006 at 17:17
|
Too much!!! I can't get an image of the "Mustu" in here.
Coluld somebody show it's superstructures for me, please!
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 14:23
you mean the Mutsu?
  ------------- |
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 14:39
That's her, thank you! Sorry, I mispelled her name in my last post
 .Check those superstructures!!! Some say that Ise and Yamashiro look better, but my personal opinion is that Mutsu looks better. Anyway it's just about taste.
Thank you again, Temujin, for those pictures.
|
Posted By: Giordano
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 12:44
 My favourite WWII battleship is Bismarck... |
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 17:48
The sub on it's right looks better
 !Prinz Eugen looks about the same and it was a far better ship
 ! |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 20:10
|
All the battleships are cool, but the best warship(s) were the 21 Essex and Ticonderoga Class aircraft carriers of WW II. These two classes were virtually identical and were the backbone of the USN in the Pacific war.
|
Posted By: Giordano
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2006 at 09:22
Prince Eugen is a heavy cruiser,Bismarck has a sister named as Tirpitz. Prince Eugen is 15 000 tons,Bismarck is 41 700 tons. |
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2006 at 11:51
|
Prinz Eugen looks almost identical with the Bismarck class. I know there is a certain difference between a heavy cruiser and a battleship.
Prinz was a better ship because it had a far more advanced fire control system than the Bismarck. And the guns were better. The German 15"/380mm guns where not that good.
There are some legends that state that Hood was sunk by Prinz, not by Bismarck. The 8" / 203mm guns she carried had excellent balistics and Hood's top armour could have been penetrated by those shells.
|
Posted By: Giordano
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2006 at 12:19
|
ok,dude,what is the source about Prince Eugen's guns better than Bismarck? I wanna read it,i wonder ,really...And pls add about some legends ;) I don't say ,you're wrong!I wanna learn it,only... |
Posted By: babyblue
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2006 at 13:01
they look similar I'll give you that...but the Prinz Eugen was in no way a better ship than the Bismark. The fact that one's a battleship and the other one's a heavy cruiser pretty much sums it up...hello??? the Prinz Eugen was Bismark's escort...?
Yeah the hood's top armour could have been penetrated by the shells Prinz Eugen's 20.3cm (8") SK.C/34 in Drehturm T.L/C/34, but it was sunk by the Bismark
 Also been able to penetrate the top armour of a warship is not great achievement...'cause it's not even the thickest...
Edit: how come my text turned out red? -------------
|
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2006 at 18:46
No problem for these soruces, just give me 5-8 days. It's a book, not a web source.
Listen, if you think of sheer power it's not that Prinz could have outgunned Bismarck, I just said that the 203 had better ballistics than the 380.
To get out of this I'll say that the 11'/280's of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were far better guns than the 203's or the 380's. Even the range was superior to the 14'/15' of the RN.
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2006 at 13:41
|
actually the Scharnhorst sunk a carrier, an old one though, but still... ------------- |
Posted By: Giordano
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2006 at 15:26
Friend,i wrote that i don't say ,you're wrong!Tell the source,i wanna read it,if there isn't on internet,no problem...Why do you turn it a problem? Main guns quality or quantity is single match point for this vessels?I wonder that too,These are battle platforms,ships not only swimming guns...If i accept that guns of Prinz better,this means Prinz better completely than Bismarck? According to me,if you 're right,this shows this reality only: Prinz's main guns better than Bismarck... |
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2006 at 16:13
It's a problem for me, I must take a 120 km trip to get that book. I wrote that it is considered a legend, not a fact, you will also find it mentioned in Douglas Reeman's novel "The Iron Pirate".
Yes the 203 was a better gun than the 380. Better is not just about power. I didn't surf the net for the characteristics of these guns I have a study on guns used in WWII. It's a Romanian Military Academy book and I "got" one of it when I was in the army. The study is very technical and I'm afraid that I don't have a scanner. Anyway, it's in Romanian, the conclusions would mean nothing to you unless you can tranlsate them.
Think of it, the German 88 is considered to be one of the best guns ever built. Also the US 5'/127mm dual purpose naval gun is considered one of the best (some think of it as simply the best) naval gun. It's upgraded version is even used nowadays.
A good description of big guns of the battleships can be found on the site I've mentioned in my first post here - http://www.combinedfleet.com - www.combinedfleet.com .
As I've mentioned in my previous post it was not just about guns. Prinz had also better fire control and damage control. And she survived the war! Oh, of course, she never sunk another ship
 .This site is partially under construction: http://www.prinzeugen.com - www.prinzeugen.com
|
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2006 at 16:51
Schranhorst and Gneisenau - The terrible duo:
(the description of the battle is partially translated from the "Modelism" magazine) |
Posted By: Giordano
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2006 at 18:18
I don't want to trouble with you,i've not insisted that i was right or you're wrong.I really wanna learn it only if it true.And i won't want any source from you anymore because this word disturb you. I'm looking for the truth,if you say forum format is that everyone say opinions,that's all;i will look at all posts only opinions and only impresivible not believable. |
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2006 at 19:00
|
Well Giordano, if you seek the truth you might discover that truth is not what you thought of being truth. I've given you some sources, but as you have noticed some are impossible for me to share with you. It's not really bothering me to give sources it's just that you seem not to have an oppinion or bring arguments into discussion. Or facts. This is a discussion forum after all. Not a "post some links" or "where did you get that?". I'm not a MOD or ADM to settle the rules but you can certainly ask them if you want to know what this forum is about. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 05:59
|
Peter II from Russia ------------- |
Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 22:32
Is that ship the USS Ronald Reagan? ------------- |
Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 23:02
Says Nimitz on the link. Though the Reagan is a nimitz class that carrier has F-14's on the back of the deck. The Reagan uses 4 wings of hornets. So its probably the Nimitz  ------------- "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" |
Posted By: pogy366
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 13:39
|
... in terms of overall impact on tactics in the 20th century, it has to go to the aircraft carrier. In the end battleships were more political extensions of their country and were outdated the minute carriers became operational. Huge capital ships represented a form of naval warfare from the previous century and there were only a rare handful of surface engagements during WWII that actually happened - the very type of surface engagement that the admirals had been training for since the battleship slid down the ways. Battleships were eventually used to provide support for carrier or transport formations rather than being the center piece for their navy. Of course, from my perspective, the best warship of the world is no skimmer.  Hands-down its the submarine. It's military and political impact can't be ignored or overshadowed by the battlewagons, who have always gotten more attention.The other vessel that put 20th century naval tactics and doctrine on its ear was the Type XXI u-boat. It represented a vast change in underwater warfare and ASW for all ocean going nations. ------------- 
"Better to be a geek than an idiot. " |
Posted By: babyblue
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2006 at 00:54
It's because you can't see them most of the bloody time...  -------------
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2006 at 00:16
|
The key issue about the Dreadnought which rendered all previous battleships redundant, (there are numerous examples from WW1 of Pre-Dreadnought battleships being easily destroyed by Dreadnoughts), was that they replaced a mixed armament of a few larger guns, plus numbers of medium sized guns with the 'All Big Gun' battleship. In addition, the various barbettes and turrets, or central batteries of the Pre-Dreadnought were replaced with a rationalised turret arrangement that could be effectively controlled through superior fire direction technology. With superior or equivalent speed through the use of oil fired turbines they could choose the range at which they would engage at. A Pre-Dreadnought with 2-4 9.2" guns would be hugely disadvantaged vs a Dreadnought with 6-12 9.2" or larger. The Dreadnought could simply remain beyond the effective range of the Pre-Dreadnought's smaller guns and pound it to bits. The change in tactics this effected was to change the range of engagement, from a fairly close range of broadside to broadside (the British Navy was still performing boarding drills as late as the 1890's), to a genuine 'duel' of individual ships or ship lines. This also nullified the Torpedo Boats (early destroyers) which some French Naval Theorists of the 'Jeune Ecole' (Young School) thought would make all battleships redundant. (The Monitor style warship (Merrimac and Virginia of the American Civil War) - heavily armour plated and steam propelled didn't change the style of warfare, it was just better armour plating.) The German High Seas Fleet had a second-line squadron of Pre-Dreadnoughts, (2nd Battle Squadron) consisting of the best of it's pre 1906 designs, and this took a battering at Jutland in 1916, losing Pommern. The Dreadnought genuinely changed the course of history by rendering every other battleship obsolete overnight for fleet duties. The man responsible for the innovation, First Sea Lord of Great Britain 'Jackie' Fisher, (although the original designs were by an Italian Naval Architect), was condemned, because he had made British Naval Superiority (of numbers) disappear as other navies scrambled to build Dreadnoughts of their own. For a view of the naval race of the early 20th Century and the Dreadnought, try 'Massey' "Dreadnought". regards Admiral |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2006 at 11:44
|
For me, one of the best ship designs was the New Jersey class battleships. Nine 16" guns were backed by excellent armour speed, radar and optics. The only Battleships with bigger guns were Yamato and Mushashi. Both of these were clumsy giants lacking effective radar. In addition, I think that 18" guns were very inefficent for rate of fire, traverse times, recoil etc.
|
Posted By: jacobtowne
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2006 at 13:07
|
Actually, New Jersey was an Iowa class ship. Off topic, but the next class, Montana, is the battleship that never existed. With an intended standard displacement of 60,500 tons, they were nearly a third larger than the preceding Iowa class, four of which were the final battleships actually completed by the Now that would have been a battleship to marvel at, but the events of December 7th, 1941, and the subsequent Battle of Midway six months later brought down the curtain on the era of big gun navies. JT |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2006 at 19:45
Ooops, thanks for the correction. I guess I asumed that because New Jersey is better known, she must have carried the Class designator as well
. |
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 23-Oct-2006 at 21:52
Wow. Those would have been magnificent ships. I think one should be built anway. There is not much more awe inspiring than a battleship. |
Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2006 at 09:12
This is incorrect, other Navies were working on their own "all big gun" warships well before the Dreadnought was launched, the Japanese Satsuma was laid down in 1904 and plans for the South Carolina were presented at the beginning of 04 and wasn't laid down until 06. In fact I would argue that the Dreadnought was itself was made obselete two years later with launching of the South Carolina class with its classic centerline gun arrangement. Though I think it commendable that the British Navy moved so quickly on their in developing such a vessel based upon the experiences of the Russo-Japanese war and the theories of a number of Naval strategists I fail to see how the Dreadnought 'revolutionized' Naval warfare.
|
Posted By: aghart
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2006 at 18:08
Other navies may have been developing "Dreadnaught" style battleships but there are no prizes for coming second or third!! Dreadnaught was the first of it's type to enter service and did render all earlier battleships obselete overnight. It was a new concept in Battleship design, The South Carolina's and indeed all subsequent class of battleships up to and including the Yamato and Iowa class ships were simply improved Dreadnaughts!! No single warship has ever had that kind of impact on the entire world before or since. ------------- Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines |
Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 27-Oct-2006 at 21:35
Let me ask you this, did the Dreadnought affect US and Japanese ship design?
It did, but so what, other navies were in the process of developing newer battleships based upon the theories of prominent naval strategists and events in the Russo- Japanese war. Dreadnought did not have the dramatic effect you claim and her entry into service was not revolutionary, she was merely an improvement.
|
Posted By: aghart
Date Posted: 29-Oct-2006 at 18:42
|
QUOTE:
Other navies may have been developing "Dreadnaught" style battleships but there are no prizes for coming second or third!!
Let me ask you this, did the Dreadnought affect US and Japanese ship design?
Dreadnaught was the first of it's type to enter service and did render all earlier battleships obselete overnight. It did, but so what, other navies were in the process of developing newer battleships based upon the theories of prominent naval strategists and events in the Russo- Japanese war. Dreadnought did not have the dramatic effect you claim and her entry into service was not revolutionary, she was merely an improvement.
QUOTE: Prior to Dreadnaught, Battleships all over the world were a mismash of different designs based on different views and needs. After Dreadnaught battleship design was standardised ( based on Dreadnaught) all over the globe and all subsequent Battleships right up to the Iowa class were simply improved versions of this one design. So Dreadnaught was revolutionary and everything after her were the improvements!!
The link provided shows that the rest of the world including the USA followed the building of Dreadnaught with a keen eye so it is pretty safe to say that Dreadnaught did influence US Battleship design even if it was to confirm that they were on the right track!!
As for Japan, Britain built an improved Dreadnaught (Kongo) for Japan and then sold the blueprints to them so they could build their own!!, so yes I suggest that Dreadnaught did influence Japanese Battleship design.
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/uk/uksh-d/drednt9.htm - http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/uk/uksh-d/drednt9.htm
http://content.military.com/Resources/EquipmentDetails/BB61.htm - http://content.military.com/Resources/EquipmentDetails/BB61.htm
http://www.heliopolis.us/archives/2005/10/dreadnaught/ - http://www.heliopolis.us/archives/2005/10/dreadnaught/
We are all entitled to our opinions but for you non believers simply look in any book or web page about Dreadnaught and they all say the same, "revolutionary design" "put Battleship design on a new level" etc etc.
have all these naval historians got it wrong?
------------- Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines |
Posted By: Heliopolis
Date Posted: 28-Nov-2006 at 08:40
As the owner of the site linked above, I just want to make clear that I, for my part, am not a naval historian. I just went to a school whose mascot was a dreadnaught. And I like big ships with bigger guns.  Thanks for the nod, though! |
Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2006 at 18:30
|
Sorry for the long delay but Aghart, in a word and in a sense... yes
look I'm not trying to say that the Dreadnought wasn't remarkable but I firmly believe that you are overstating the ships significance, even if it did revolutionize battleship design its impact on history I am sorry to say is utterly unimportant and negligible. Its influence lasted no more than perhaps 40 years when the last 'battleships' were built and perhaps 35 years in which they were still the lords of the sea. As to its influence on battleship design, I'll concede that she forced a number of navies to adapt and build dreadnought like ships of their own. Yet she influenced If you’re argument is based on the Dreadnought being the most effective ship at sea between 06-08 well then I’d agree you. Yet if you’re looking for a truly revolutionary ship then I’d have to go with the English race built galleon. |