Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: dynamt on February 03, 2004, 03:20:10 PM
-
Interesting site
http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm
dynamt
-
Extremely interesting and one of the most readable battleship comparisons ever. Surprising conclusions, and surprising that the Richelieu was so formidable (obviously I know next to nothing about the Richelieu).
-
wasnt the vittorio venetto, the bismark and the british BB and the Yamato all built before the start or just after the start of the war while the iowa and the dakota class were significantly upgraded right after pearl?
a rather unfair comparison if so.
-
Originally posted by OIO
wasnt the vittorio venetto, the bismark and the british BB and the Yamato all built before the start or just after the start of the war while the iowa and the dakota class were significantly upgraded right after pearl?
a rather unfair comparison if so.
Yamato- Dec 1941
Iowa- Feb 1943
Bismarck- Aug. 1940
Richelieu- Jul 1940
KGV - Dec 1940
Vittorio Veneto- Apr-1940
South Dakota- March 1942
From http://www.hazegray.org
They were all completed between April 1940, and Feb of 1943
-Sik
-
Sikboy, think of the changes and advancements in aircraft performance between 1940 and 1943.
Hurricane Is, SpitIs, Bf109Es against P-47Cs, 109Gs, Fw190s, Spit9s, La-5FNs and Yak-9s.
I'm unfamiliar with the evolutionary table of heavy ships, but should we expect anything different?
-
Hmmm.
I wasn't really attaching any meaning one way or the other to the fact that they were all within 3 years of one another.
There were some major advances during that time, most noteably the emphasis on AAA and Shipborne Radar.
From that perspective, I can deffinately see there being a big difference, however unlike Aircraft, you would generally refit new systems onto old Ships. I mean the Brits still had pleanty of WWI Era Battleships floating around the world, which had been more or less modernized.
With all that said though, I don't see how the North Carolina (comishoned in April, 1941) would have faired any worse than the South Dakota.
-Sik
-
The Author of the site takes some time to go over stuff like this in the FAQ
http://www.combinedfleet.com/b_FAQ.htm
Worthwhile read.
Interesting, he seems to get a lot of KM hatemail lol.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by OIO
wasnt the vittorio venetto, the bismark and the british BB and the Yamato all built before the start or just after the start of the war while the iowa and the dakota class were significantly upgraded right after pearl?
a rather unfair comparison if so.
It's only unfair because the Italian and German ship designs sucked. Bismarck had this badboy rep but was a fat pig in the water and wasn't the best design, simply had extra crap stuffed onto it. Her base layout was a remodeled Jersey-Guernsey, or Holstein. Can't recall which.
Iowa was a great design.
From what I recall, many opine that the Iowas were no match for Yamato, the USN always felt (and I am pulling this off the top of my head from my poor memory), always felt their fire control gave them an edge and they would take their ships over the Japanese in a surface fight. Yamato was like 20K larger tha Iowa, but raw size was all she had going for her.
Japanese sailors were quite good, but in surface engagements not ruled by torpedoes, US sailors did pretty good.
Sakai
-
Originally posted by Sakai
It's only unfair because the Italian and German ship designs sucked. Bismarck had this badboy rep but was a fat pig in the water and wasn't the best design, simply had extra crap stuffed onto it. Her base layout was a remodeled Jersey-Guernsey, or Holstein. Can't recall which.
Sakai
Bismarck was based upon the Baden/Bayern class dreadnoughts of WWI. Generally considered to be a middling design by late 1930s standards.
My regards,
Widewing
-
And the record hit vs.a moving target in WW2 was by HMS Warspite, a WW1 construction with the good old 15" naval gun. Range 26 Km!
-
Originally posted by Angus
And the record hit vs.a moving target in WW2 was by HMS Warspite, a WW1 construction with the good old 15" naval gun. Range 26 Km!
Wow that's very cool (big fan of the Warspite here, even named by car after her lol) When and where did this happen?
-Sik
-
At the Battle of Calabria on 9 July 1940 she hit the Italian flagship, Guilio Cesare, at the amazing range of 21 kilometres.
from the link:
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/3515.html
-
Funny, I may have 2 things wrong, or not?
I remember 26 KM at capa Matapan, may be wrong there.
I also thought that Barham was a King V class.
But again, what do I know.....I'll have a look.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Funny, I may have 2 things wrong, or not?
I remember 26 KM at capa Matapan, may be wrong there.
I also thought that Barham was a King V class.
But again, what do I know.....I'll have a look.
Barham was one of the Queen Elizabeths, as was Warspite. All of the ships in this class were launched between 1912 and 1916. Barham underwent a major refitting during 1930 thru 1933, but not modernized after that. Warspite was completely rebuilt just prior to WWII.
The range of Warspite's remarkable (and probably very lucky) hit was 26,400 yards.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Did not a German ship get some long range hits off of Norway?
-
Checked out Barham. QE class indeed.
And the Warspite's hit was lucky, yes. Yet the Admiral's ships were renowned for having elite crews, and the RN capital ships trained extensively.
The Bismarck's "lucky" hit when HMS Hood exploded was at 14K, - at that range The Prince of Wales was already scoring as well.
There is one engagement that sticks out nicely. British cruiser HMS Belfast of 11000 tonnes with 12x6" guns vs. the 31000 tonne with 9x11" guns Battleship Scharnhorst. In poor visibility the Brits picked her up on radar at 30K and opened fire at 12K. Belfast scored several hits while the Scharnhorst failed to. Scharnhorst disengaged, tried again, disengaged and ran, - but into a trap setup by the British, - they had a battleship waiting. Belfast positioned itself nicely to "illuminate" the Scharnhorst while DOY (HMS Duke of York) opened fire at 11K. The Scharnhorst got hit soon enough and ran again (very fast ship). When the distance was some 18K the Brits were still scoring, and finally managed to damage her engines. As she slowed, she was surrounded and torpedoed untill she sank.
Anyway, at full speed in very little visibility, the Brits scored on a 30 kts evading target at up to 18K many times, even with the 6 inch guns.
-
The difference is that capital ships were a pretty mature technology, so advances didn't come as rapidly as with aircraft at that time.
Gun design was pretty much worked out before WW1. The metallurgy of armor did progress in the 20's and 30's but not by a lot. Powerplants increased in performance, but at a steady rate.
Bigger gains came from aircraft used for spotting and scouting, AA armament, development of night fighting equipment & doctrine, and later radar gunnery.
-blogs
Originally posted by Kweassa
Sikboy, think of the changes and advancements in aircraft performance between 1940 and 1943.
Hurricane Is, SpitIs, Bf109Es against P-47Cs, 109Gs, Fw190s, Spit9s, La-5FNs and Yak-9s.
I'm unfamiliar with the evolutionary table of heavy ships, but should we expect anything different?
-
thanks for the link sikboi. my dates were off but my memory on the spot.
The iowas were built (or upgraded during construction) taking into account the lessons learned during most of the war.
aka, antiaircraft defense, submarine defense, radar, improved fire control , etc.
Too bad they didnt rate the US ships that were sunk and repaired after Pearl into that comparison, it wouldve been interesting.
The way I see that comparison is like putting a spitfire 1, hurri1, 109F4, P38F, F4F wildcat and then plug in a P51D and claim it as the best of the bunch (duh!).