Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Most Powerful "Battleship"? (Excludes Carriers)  
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7032 times:

It is my humble opinion that a battleship of either the New Jersey class, or the Bismarck, is the most powerful battleship ever built. (This excludes modern supercarriers.)

What is your opinion?

103 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7026 times:

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/japan/japsh-xz/yamato.htm

User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7022 times:

Ah, the Yamato!  Smile That's a good choice.

User currently offlineWukka From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1017 posts, RR: 16
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7017 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 1):
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/japan/japsh-xz/yamato.htm

I'd always heard that the Yamato was quite the badass, but never really got around to looking it up. Thanks for the link, ANC!



We can agree to disagree.
User currently offlinePacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2734 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7008 times:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

This is a detailed comparison of late model battleships. The winner he comes up with is the Iowa class, followed by South Dakota, then Yamato 3rd.

Personally I feel the Vanguard class should be in their as well.



" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7000 times:

Quoting Pacificjourney (Reply 4):
The winner he comes up with is the Iowa class, followed by South Dakota, then Yamato 3rd.

My apologies for misidentifying the Iowa class as the New Jersey class.


User currently offlineWukka From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1017 posts, RR: 16
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6986 times:

Quoting Pacificjourney (Reply 4):

Although quite comprehensive, if you flip around that site a bit, there's way to many asterisks and disclaimers and whatnot to really consider it an authoritative source of info. There's some good reading there, though.



We can agree to disagree.
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6982 times:

Dreadnaught battleships have always been my hobby, so thanks for bringing it up. Big grin

The Yamato and her sistership the Musashi was, of course the baddest class of battleship in the world.

The Iowa was actually nowhere near the Yamato in terms of head-to-head fighting ability, and in fact, I say it was not even a battleship at all. The Iowa class was more like a battle-cruiser.

The guiding rule of battleships was that their armor had to be able to protect the vitals of the ship from the same armement that it carried. Thus, if the ship carried 16 inch guns, it had to be armored against hits from 16 inch shells. Battle-cruisers were ships which had the same armement of battleships, but whose armor did not meet that standard, trading weight for speed.

The Iowa was armed with 16 inch guns, but its armor was only good for around 14 inch shells. The tradeoff was done so that the ship could achieve 33 knots of speed. The North Carolina Class had the same problem.

In fact, the last PROPER battleships built by the US were the South Dakota class. It had 16 inch guns and the armor matched to its armement. But it could only do 28 knots.

So of the last three classes of American battleships, only one was a true battleship. The others were essentially battle-cruisers, albeit with armor somewhere between that of a battle-cruiser and a battleship. Hybrids, really.

The US did start building the Montana class battleships during WWII, but they were cancelled prior to completion. They would have been proper battleships again, with a dozen 16 inch guns, and matched armor, and a displacement of 65,000 tons, some 50% more than the Iowas, and much of that weight increase was for armor.

By the way, in the 1920s, the British, US and Japanese navies were working on designs for battleships with 18 inch and even 20 inch guns! That was stopped by the Washington treaty, which put strict limits on battleship size and displacement, and thus its armement. The treaty was abandoned in the late thirties, and all the countries had to start again from where they left off 15 years earlier. If it had not been for the Washington Treaty, God knows what kind of monsters would have been built by WWII.


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6963 times:

Quoting Pacificjourney (Reply 4):
http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

Very cool web site . . . . .  thumbsup 


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6952 times:

Quoting Pacificjourney (Reply 4):
http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

This is a detailed comparison of late model battleships. The winner he comes up with is the Iowa class, followed by South Dakota, then Yamato 3rd.

I'm afraid that that site has some inaccuracies. I have (on paper only, unfortunately), copies of the schematics and specifications of the armor on the South Dakota and Iowa classes. The South Dakota class was definately better armored than the Iowa.

Edit: I was just looking through some of the secondary pages, and I see that both the Iowas and the South Dakotas had anti-aircraft batteries that could throw out some 25 tons of ammunition into the air PER MINUTE! Good God, I would not like to be in an airplane attacking one of those!

[Edited 2006-02-08 10:49:47]

User currently offlinePacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2734 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6948 times:

Did you surf around to the main site ?

http://www.combinedfleet.com/kaigun.htm

'kaigun', navy in Japanese.

Something about those Japanese ships which grabs your eye like others just don't.

Quoting Wukka (Reply 6):
there's way to many asterisks and disclaimers and whatnot to really consider it an authoritative source of info.

Quite impossible (if not pointless) to actually compare them anyway but I think his is a comprehensive effort nonetheless.

The Italain designs compare poorly for example but then they would in several areas e.g. sea worthiness(they will only operate in the Med.), range and endurance (ditto), AA defence (always planned to operate within the homelands air umbrella so no point), and so on.



" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
User currently offlinePacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2734 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6942 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 9):
The South Dakota class was definately better armored than the Iowa.

The older SD's may have had more armour in weight but wether it was 'better' than the newer Iowa's I think it's a bit simplistic to claim.



" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6936 times:

Quoting Pacificjourney (Reply 10):
'kaigun', navy in Japanese.

Something about those Japanese ships which grabs your eye like others just don't.

I'm still reading through it. . . . particularly interested in the new book on Midway - my 'favorite' WW2 Pacific Battle. Interesting they claim Fuchida was - essentially - a liar. I'm going to buy the book.

Excellent site - thanks for posting the link!


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6935 times:

Quoting Pacificjourney (Reply 11):
The older SD's may have had more armour in weight but wether it was 'better' than the newer Iowa's I think it's a bit simplistic to claim.

The Iowa's armor was lightened for speed, but they tried to compensate by being creative in its layout. The main armor belt is actually inside the hull - the outer hull is much thinner, and angled to deflect incoming shells downwards. This would have been good at short ranges, but would have been a dangerous situation in case of long-range plunging fire, as the belt would have been completely parallel to the trajectory of the incoming shell, and thus useless. My guess is that they assumed that Japanese radar sucked, and would be unable to achieve hits at long range.

The Montana class would have reverted to good old-fashioned hull plating, and lots of it.


User currently offlinePacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2734 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6922 times:

If you like ships try these as well.

http://www.regiamarina.it/eng_index.htm

http://www.german-navy.de/index.html

http://www.uboat.net/

and if you areREALLY interested in WW2 I think there's only one place to go.

http://forum.axishistory.com/



" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
User currently offlineTSV From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1641 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6890 times:

Quoting Pacificjourney (Reply 4):
Personally I feel the Vanguard class should be in their as well.

Vanguard by all acounts was as excellent sea boat. During joint manoeuvres Iowa rolled up to 26 degrees whereas Vanguard rolled only 15 degrees according to Breyer. Vanguard was probably let down by having rather dated 15 inch guns (left over from from Glorious and Courageous after their conversions into Aircraft Carriers) which even though they were excellent guns they were not in the same ball park as some of the guns designed later.

The one(s) I would have liked to have been built was the second version of the design for the Lion (and Temeraire). Bigger and better designed versions of the KGV with 9 x (new as in more modern than Nelson's and Rodney's) 16 inch guns. They were actually laid down but were dismantled on the slip (218t and 121t respectively) after being much delayed.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 7):
The US did start building the Montana class battleships during WWII, but they were cancelled prior to completion.

There are no dates for any of them being laid down. Orders were placed on September 9 1940 but none was commenced again according to Breyer.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 7):
If it had not been for the Washington Treaty, God knows what kind of monsters would have been built by WWII.

It's not hard to imagine what would have been produced. The RN had already settled on the design of the "G3" Battlecruiser and the "N3" Battleship. The "G3" was more like a "fast battleship" than a Battlecruiser with 9 x 16 inch guns while the "N3" was similar but slower and with 9 x 18 inch guns.

Nelson and Rodney (or Nelsol and Rodnol depending on your state of humour) could simplistically be called a cut-down (very much) and mixed around version of the G3/N3.

Also the USN had the "South Dakota" Battleships and "Lexington" Battlecruisers all laid down but were all cancelled except of course Lexington and Saratoga which became Aircraft Carriers.

Quoting Pacificjourney (Reply 11):
The older SD's may have had more armour in weight but wether it was 'better' than the newer Iowa's I think it's a bit simplistic to claim.

True. Sturton states that they (the SD's) had a "novel" system that was being built before it had been tested and subsequent tests showed it wasn't entirely satisfactory.



"I told you I was ill ..." Spike Milligan
User currently offlineTSV From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1641 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6871 times:

Does anyone know which Battleship scored the longest range hit on an opposing warship in battle?

Answer : (might surprise some)



"I told you I was ill ..." Spike Milligan
User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Reply 17, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6852 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 7):
The US did start building the Montana class battleships during WWII, but they were cancelled prior to completion.

Actually the Montana class was canceled before any were laid down.

The irony is that during the days of battleship building, Montana was the only state to never have an active duty battleship named for it.

Quoting TSV (Reply 16):
Does anyone know which Battleship scored the longest range hit on an opposing warship in battle?

The longest confirmed hit was by HMS Warspite on the Italian battleship Giulio Cesare at a range of roughly 26,000 yards.

There is debate though as to whether the honor actually goes to the German battlecruiser Scharnhorst for hitting the British carrier HMS Glorious at around 26,450 yards.

And yes, I knew this without hitting Google. Military history, especially WWII, is my area of study in grad school. I did have to look up Giulio Cesare since I couldn't remember how to spell it.  

[Edited 2006-02-08 14:40:51]


"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6912 posts, RR: 34
Reply 18, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 6823 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
It is my humble opinion that a battleship of either the New Jersey class, or the Bismarck, is the most powerful battleship ever built.

My favorite has always been the Bismarck. Just a massive hulk of a ship.

My sentimental favorite, however, is the USS Wisconsin, the second one (BB-64).

Served from WWII all through the first Gulf War.


User currently offlinePbottenb From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 431 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 6811 times:

While you may not consider the Iowa class the "Most powerful" battleship, they certainly win on length of service and action seen.

I believe that the last Iowa fired shots in anger during the first Gulf War in 1991. I believe she was the Missouri.

And for that matter she fired both shells and cruise missiles.....

So, wouldn't the addition of Tomahawk's and those unmanned aerial vehicles for spotting make the Missouri the baddest of all? I'll take the Missouri at the end of her service against ANY battleship in history. Her cruise missiles had a range of at least 500 miles, if not more...

My 2 Cents...


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 6806 times:

It's silly to say that the Yamatos were the most powerful. They were the biggest, and had the largest guns, but by no means would they have dominated Iowas. It's likely that they would have been very good matches for each other. The other thing is that the Iowas were faster and had better gun range and accuracy, and so could have done quite a bit of distant harassing of any opponent.

Now, if the Montanas had been built, they would have been the best, no asterisks attached.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6788 times:

Quoting B757300 (Reply 17):
Actually the Montana class was canceled before any were laid down.

You're right. I guess I was thinking about the 2 uncompleted Iowa class ships, Kentucky and Illinois.


User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6788 times:

Interesting subject. I have an article about the Iowa on my blog for January. I was privileged to tour the Big J and the Mighty Mo when they were brought down to Long Beach back in the 1980s. The tours were deck tours only, of course. I toured the Big J after it was refitted, before the first Gulf War. Quite impressive, particularly when you consider that much of it was under water.

There's a pic under the Jan 6 entry and I have a number of others.

http://cornponepapers.blogspot.com/


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 23, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6776 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 20):
It's silly to say that the Yamatos were the most powerful. They were the biggest, and had the largest guns, but by no means would they have dominated Iowas. It's likely that they would have been very good matches for each other.

IMO, your point is valid. The Iowas had superior fire control technology, speed, and (I believe) a superior fire rate...and the 16 inch projectile, while not equal in destructive power to the Yamato's 18 inch, could still have made quite a mess on the target platform!

We would have found out, if Halsey had not been out-foxed at Leyte Gulf!



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7801 posts, RR: 16
Reply 24, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6763 times:

I generally agree with most of what has been said, but in the end most analyses that I have seen done put the Iowa class at the top for the following reasons.

1. Radar based FCS. The North Carolina, SouDak, and Iowa class battleships all had the most advanced radar systems and effective non-digital fire control computers on board. So despite the fact that many of her contemparies could easily range her, the Iowas would stand a better chance of landing a shell on target at range vs. ships with conventional optical systems.

2. Both the 16/45 and 16/50 guns on the post-treaty ships carried the super heavy 16" AP shell, which was the most powerful 16" shell and the most reliable. So now the Iowa could get a shell on target and have a better chance of having the damn thing do something.

3. All or nothing armor. All American battleships employed this armor scheme to some degree. In essence there were parts of the ship that would be unarmored. but vitals like the control tower, turrets, ammo stores, fuel bunkers, etc would be protected and would remain watertight.


If you do a search the December 2005 issue of Naval History (I believe that is the title of the journal) has an analysis of a hypothetical battle between a SouDak and Tirpitz as well as an Iowa and a Yamato class. Very interesting reading and gives you a good idea of what would happen should a 1-on-1 BB slugfest actually occur.

Unfortunately there isn't a ton of capital ship on capital ship action during WWII to draw extensive conclusions. You have USS Washington sinking Kirashima at Guadalcanal. Bismarck and heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen sinking the Hood and damaging the POW. You have Rodney and KGV (with heavy cruisers Norfolk and Dorsetshire) sinking Bismarck. And the Duke of York with 3-4 cruisers sinking Scharnhorst.

All of those battles suggest that sinking an enemy BB either involves sheer luck (in the case of the Hood) or ends up being an extended slugfest, as in the case of the Bismarck. Even the sinking of the Yamato took a huge number of carrier based aircraft to take down. But the sinking of Repulse and POW at Singapore was largely due to lucky hits.



Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
25 Arrow : Great thread. For those battleship afficionados who want to get into the history and evolution of these monsters, two books written by Robert K. Massi
26 Post contains images Cfalk : The Hood was a beefed-up battlecruiser, and as such was insufficiently armored. It suffered the same fate as several other battlecruisers during the
27 DesertJets : The ultimate irony about the sinking of the Bismarck, to me at least, was that a lowly Swordfish torpedo bomber managed to jam Bismarck's rudder maki
28 B757300 : It is too bad the Hood hadn't received its planned armor upgrades. She would have been in a lot better shape to dual with enemy battleships. Last tim
29 Banco : I'm not sure "beefed-up" is fair. She had no pretence to be anything other than a battlecruiser at any point in her career. The fact that she was hug
30 Post contains images Cfalk : I've read both books, and I concur. Excellent books. In fact I am re-reading Castles of Steel right now.
31 Lumberton : Uh...I think the first one (Fuso?) was put out of action by the initial torpedo attack by the destroyers; the latter was sunk by gunfire. No IJN BB w
32 DesertJets : Maybe irony was not the proper term, but the match-up seems odd at best. Having, arguably, one of the most advanced and powerful battleships in the A
33 Banco : Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, that's true and indeed is ironic. In fact, to further the point, one of the reasons the Swordfish were so successful in
34 UALPHLCS : I have to disagree. As a Certifed Docent on the Battleship New Jersey we get this question a lot. Could the Iowas compete with the Yamatos? Heavier g
35 L-188 : But Japanese ships where highly vulnurable from a damage control perspective. The Iowa would have been able to take some hits from those 18" guns, bu
36 DL021 : I'd say that the ability of the Iowa class BBs to accurately place, using fire control radar, fire and work at night put them ahead of the Yamato clas
37 Dougloid : Ordered Castles of Steel on Amazon today. Here's what I had to say about the Iowa. Bear in mind that it is the second battlewagon to bear the name Io
38 Pacificjourney : Please don't hijack an otherwise interesting thread with the political, flag-waving crap. Another thread exists on the very issue you have raised, ple
39 Dougloid : OK sorry let's talk about Kiwi battlewagons.
40 UALPHLCS : Just need to correct a misconception. Wisconsin was forth in her class New Jersey was second. BB-61 Iowa New York Navy Yard BB-62 New Jersey Philadel
41 Garnetpalmetto : Actually, incorrect, Dougloid. BB-61 was the third battleship to bear the name Iowa. Prior to that was the Iowa-class BB-4 and the South Dakota-class
42 Traindriver : Another decent book about battleships is "Sacred Vessels" The Cult of the Battleship and the Rise of the U.S. Navy by Robert L. O'Connell. It was publ
43 Lumberton : What ticked you off, Pacificjourney? He is hardly the first a.netter to stray a little OT. Well, there was HMS New Zealand, built in England, but I b
44 ANCFlyer : Believe it or not - I concur with PJ on his assessment here . . . this is what he was talking about. Great post right up to here.
45 Post contains links TSV : Yes to avoid "that" debate the operative word in my question was "Battleship". Scharnhorst - being a Battlecruiser - was not meant to be included. Sp
46 Post contains images Slider : Wow! Thanks for the great education UALPHL! Great stuff- your experience and knowledge here is impressive. I love Anet because of the wide range of k
47 UALPHLCS : Oh I see, sorry about that, I understand you now. Just to stir the pot a little bit. Technically, IMO the most powerful warship ever to put to sea wo
48 Pacificjourney : TOPIC POLICE - move along please ...
49 Tristarenvy : The Texas! Just kidding...a little Texan chest beating.... It would be an interesting concept to have a pure battleship vs. battleship computer game.
50 Post contains links Banco : I dn't know, but you reminded me that we very nearly had lots of footage of the Bismarck in her last battle. The (much later) renowned writer and bro
51 DL021 : Without a doubt the Ohio class, and the Typhoon SSBN class from the USSR, are the most powerful vessels in history. The Ohio can destroy entire count
52 Dougloid : I stand corrected-sort of, untill I check this out. If you want to get picky let's qualify it to commissioned battleships. BB53 was never commissione
53 GDB : Interesting topic. I understood a carrier WAS sent East with PoW and Repulse, but ran around en-route. Though it's 'eccentric' Fairy Fulmar fighters w
54 IRelayer : In terms of the ultimate battleship...the one that is the biggest, baddest, and most intimidating ship of its day, it has to be the Yamato. The thing
55 TSV : HMS Tartar.
56 L-188 : I see your Swordfish and raise you the F4U Corsair. It was designed well enough that they where still fighting in central america into the 1970's.
57 N328KF : You haven't read this thread at all, have you?
58 Post contains links TSV : If anyone was wondering what the G3 and N3 would have looked like : G3 : Someone's effort in Photoshop or equivalent : http://www.geocities.com/alt_na
59 Lumberton : Can't get any of the geocities links to work, but the models look great!
60 Tristarenvy : Good planes, but I think the USN dive bombers of the day, might have a thing to say in this card game....
61 TSV : Yeah looks like I exhausted them just looking around. Pity. Wonder how they can be restored?
62 DesertJets : I've been very curious as to why the British KGV ended up being such an underperformer when compared to her contempories like the NC, SouDak, and Bis
63 UALPHLCS : OK just a little clarification on this subject. I talked today with the Curator of the BB62. The Iowas were designed in the 1930s, at the time of thi
64 Arrow : C'mon guys. This is apples and oranges. The Swordfish was a relic from post WW1 and the only things the RN had. Corsairs, Seafires, etc. were somewha
65 L-188 : I can agree with that. I would still put it a generation behind a SDB..... However I would list it above the disastorous Douglas Devastator.
66 Lumberton : Not sure I agree with the characterization of "under performer". When POW met BISMARCK, she still had yardbirds onboard. The ship was not totally rea
67 DesertJets : The speed of the Iowas really was an asset, and a marked departure from earlier American battleship designs... which averaged a slow 21-22kts max cru
68 L-188 : I agree with that assessment.....she hadn't even been on a shakedown cruise to find out what wasn't built right at that point.
69 IRelayer : I actually did read the thread. Have you read beggining of the thread? If you haven't, here it is again: Hmm...lets see. The thread starter asked a r
70 Lumberton : A key competitive advantage missed in all previous posts! The IJN's damage control was simply not on par with the U.S. Navy's. Compare what happened
71 Lumberton : Just noticed L-188 brought out the damage control issue in a previous post. My apologies to you!
72 TSV : Try and obtain a copy of Tarrant's book. It is a very balanced account. Basically they (the KGVs) were designed within Treaty Limitations. I think yo
73 TSV : Huh? That wasn't me. It was him!
74 DesertJets : I do know that the naval treaties limited any new build battleship to a 14" primary battery, but the esclator clause allowed for larger guns to be fi
75 Post contains links Dougloid : One of the main issues here was fire control. I found a site that has a side by side comparison of fire control between several allied and axis battle
76 TSV : And that's what the British wanted to avoid much to Churchill's disgust - something like "we are the only ones to be hurt/bound by the Treaty when th
77 Arrow : Oops. Sorry about that. Quick trigger finger I guess.
78 B757300 : The King George V class BB's were not prevented from having larger guns. The treaties that governed the size of armament of warships had lapsed by th
79 Pacificjourney : I have read several sources saying the KGV's had many problems with their quad 16 inch mounts with 1 or 2 guns being out of order in each turret being
80 DesertJets : I guess I didn't put too much consideration into the entire timing issue, especially as the US Navy had a few additional years to build up and design/
81 UALPHLCS : You have a very good point. Added to that would be the the training of the US crews in gunnery. According to some of the guys on the BB62 Japanese gu
82 TSV : Warship 9 "The King George V Class PART 1" by Robert Dumas "The new ships were required to be designed within the current international Treaty limita
83 Post contains images DL021 : I've got it. The most powerful battleship ever (post a few modifications) is this one That wave motion gun is a killer.....
84 GDB : Arrow I think got my point, that Swordfish was a nominally obsolete aircraft that in the end, racked up an extremely successful war record. Not just i
85 L-188 : I got that point to. If somebody told me that I had to start WWII with a carrier equipped with Wildcats and Swordfish......well I can think of worse
86 Miamiair : As long as we're getting into details, the RN version of the F4F was the Martlet. And the USN and USMC didn't start any better. We had the Vindicator
87 GDB : The RN only got back control of naval aviation, from the RAF, in 1937, after 20 years of neglect. Gloster prototyped a new fighter around this time, i
88 L-188 : Yup that will really screw up a naval aviation program. True didn't think of that. Actually what I understand the lend-lease Corsairs that where prov
89 GDB : Did the RN ever get the Dauntless? It was a well regarded aircraft. Martlets were ordered as early as 1940, the RN I think also took on some allocated
90 Falcon84 : Not having read through most of this thread, it was always mystifying to me that after the Yamato came out, it was Yamamoto's flagship, but if I remem
91 L-188 : Not that I am aware of. I can't think of the name for the aircraft, but it was one ugly aircraft......I think it was a Farley. I'll have to look. AFA
92 Post contains links JeffSFO : Yes. The Yamato was sunk on April 7, 1945. Admiral Yamamoto was killed a whole two years earlier on April 18, 1943. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/
93 Cfalk : Yamato was destroyed by U.S. Naval aviators during the Okinawa campaign in 1945. It wasn't the first time. In WWI, the Kaiser refused to risk the Hig
94 Post contains images DL021 : OK..so that link did not work. Let me try again. Once again...the most powerful battleship of all time He was, to his credit, aware that the age of t
95 Post contains images Falcon84 : Thanks Charles. I thought so. [Edited 2006-02-12 00:46:31]
96 Mirrodie : uno mas time, Ian! Personally, I think its the Enterprise, NCC 1701
97 Post contains links TSV : You are not thinking of the Fairey Barracuda are you? http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/aircraft/Barracuda.htm
98 L-188 : Thanks TSV. Yup that is the Ugly SOB right there.
99 Post contains links TSV : Don't thank me thank the FAA website. But they are : http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/aircraft/Dauntless.htm
100 Post contains links TSV : Idea for a new thread? Here's another candidate : http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/aircraft/Seamew.htm
101 L-188 : Well I feel better knowing that the Royal Navy only got 9 of them and they didn't see combat with them. I didn't thnk I remembered any word about them
102 Post contains images Revelation : A recent PBS documentary about the last Pacific campains had an interview of a Japanese seaman, and he said the Yamato was not referred to as the Bat
103 Post contains images Cfalk : Or its big brother...
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Most Powerful Entity On Earth? posted Thu Oct 12 2006 20:48:24 by Bushpilot
Most Powerful Object In The Universe? posted Sat Aug 5 2006 04:22:38 by Aircraft
Top Gun Top Celebrity: Cruise Most Powerful Celeb posted Fri Jun 16 2006 08:45:16 by VHVXB
The Most Powerful Diesel Engine In The World posted Mon May 29 2006 21:41:16 by KFLLCFII
Most Powerful Man In Britain?....... Bush! posted Thu Jan 6 2005 14:54:34 by Jasepl
Most Powerful Countries? posted Wed Oct 2 2002 04:13:42 by Flymia
Most Powerful Man In The World posted Fri Aug 9 2002 14:07:55 by Delta-flyer
52 Things Most Girls Don't Know About Guys posted Fri Nov 10 2006 00:42:49 by ATAIndy
Most Un-islamic Muslim Elected Rep In Minnesota posted Wed Nov 8 2006 23:53:20 by RAPCON
Your Most Embarassing Story posted Sat Nov 4 2006 10:58:56 by Jayce