ANYONE INTO WW2 WARSHIPS ?

last SG · 2010-03-06T02:00:15+00:00

My favourites....British: Hood, Prince of WalesUS: Iowa, New JerseyJapanese: Yamato, MusashiGerman: Bismarck, Admiral Graf SpeeCome to think of it... all the...

As romanista2001 SG

well ? anyone ? who do you think should win the ''most beautiful warship'' beauty pageant...................

the favourites.................

1) Hood (the only good-looking British ship)

2) Iowa

3) Roma (Ferrari of battleships)

4) Scharnhorst (real sexy..........)

5) Yamato (conning tower is an eyesore..........)

the dark horses..............

1) Prinz Eugen

2) Alaska

Atobe SG

The design of the German Pocket Battleships built in the mid-1930s, must be ahead of its time as seen in the Admiral Graf Spee.

These Pocket Battleships were actually uprated heavy cruisers as Germany was restricted by the Treaty of Versailles signed after WW-1 - and can only construct warships no larger then Battle Cruisers.

During the early period of WW-2, Germany sent out several pocket battleships to terrorise Allied shipping in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, and was said to have sailed close to Singapore.

The Admiral Graf Spee was scuttled when she was cornered in ‘The Battle of the River Plate’ (*1) in Argentina.

Admiral Graf Spee

Specifications:

Keel laid: 1 October 1932

Launched: 30 June 1934

Commissioned: 6 January 1936

Scuttled: 17 December 1939

Displacement: 12,100 standard - 16,200 full load

Length: 186m

Beam: 21.65m

Draught: 7.34m

Propulsion: Eight 9-cylinder double-acting two-stroke MAN diesels - two propellors, 52,050hp

Speed: 28.5 knots

Range: 8,900 nautical miles at 20 knots, or

9,000 nautical miles at 10 knots

Complement: 1001 to 1150

Electronic Warfare

and decoys: Early version of ‘Seetakt Radar

Armaments: 6 x 280mm (11 inch) 3 each in one front and one rear turret

8 x 150mm (5.9 inch)

6 x 105mm (4.1 inch)

8 x 37mm

10 x 20mm

8 x 533mm (21 inch) torpedo tubes

Armor: Turret face: 140mm

Belt: 100mm

Deck: 40 to 70mm

Aircraft carried: 2 x Arado 196 seaplanes, one catapult

Admiral Graf Spee – aft view

zenden9 SG

Essex carrier.. The warship that won the pacific war in WWII.

As romanista2001 SG

Graf Spee....................my favourite ship..............too bad they didn't improve her speed before war broke out..............they should have given her same turrets and guns as Scharnhorst............50% increase in rate of fire = 50% more firepower without weight increase......

but this is a beauty contest, remember ? my vote goes to Scharnhorst.....................

As romanista2001 SG

Essex carrier.. The warship that won the pacific war in WWII.

carriers are ugly....................only the Taiho looks quite okay..........

Atobe SG

but this is a beauty contest, remember ? my vote goes to Scharnhorst.....................

Admiral Scheer – sister ship to Graf Spee

The ‘Graf Spee’ was an innovative design that was first attempted by German Naval Architects and Shipyards, and compared with the other countries with similar naval traditions - the design of the Graf Spee certainly showed the modern lines that are rare in the 1930s.

The sisters - Scharnhorst and Gneisenau

The ‘Scharnhorst’ with her sister ship Gneisenau were both battle cruisers even as the Germans prefer to call these 'battleships' - as the main armaments were 11 inch guns that could not be considered as the equivalent class of the capital ships of that period which were all fitted with 15 inch main guns.

Both ships operated together and terrorised the shipping lanes that delivered war supplies from North America to Great Britain.

Unfortunately, they were both outgunned by the larger calibre 15inch guns on the battleships from the British Royal Navy.

The Battleship Bismarck

The one German naval ship that would have come closer to your dream ship must be ‘Battleship Bismarck’ for its larger 15inch main guns, thick armor that is equal to the pocket battleships, and also feature the high speed of 30 knots.

As romanista2001 SG

the pocket battleships weren't well protected at all, their armour was thinner than British heavy cruisers..............

surprisingly the Scharnhorst has thicker belt armour than the Bismarck..................but even the Bismarck is lightly armed considering her weight..............her 15'' guns are firing lighter shells than the Brits.............

Scharnhorst should have used upgraded 9 x 12'' guns from WW1 at least...............or upgraded 6 x 13.8'' guns from WW1...............

the ultimate battleship would be the Iowa.................freaking no weaknesses............

Atobe SG

carriers are ugly....................only the Taiho looks quite okay..........

The Aircraft Carriers should be appreciated separately from capital ships such as the Battleships and Battle Cruisers - as both are structurally different, with different design lines that when comparing both types together will simply be comparing "apples with oranges".

If one consider that it has always been the aircrafts launched from Aircraft Carriers that have sunk Battleships on both sides of the warring nations, it will be belittling the Aircraft Carrier to dismiss them so quickly.

Atobe SG

the pocket battleships weren't well protected at all, their armour was thinner than British heavy cruisers..............

Scharnhorst should have used upgraded 9 x 12'' guns from WW1 at least...............or upgraded 6 x 13.8'' guns from WW1...............

the ultimate battleship would be the Iowa.................freaking no weaknesses............

Yes, while the Scharnhorst had thicker belt armor at 350mm compared to the Bismarck having only 145mm to 320mm, unfortunately the deck armor on the Scharnhorst is only 95mm - compared to the Bismarck having 110 to 120mm.

In any case, the modern lines of these vessels built in the 1930s must surely testify to the superb German Naval Architects that already exist at that time, and which are featured in naval ships built in this 21st Century.

The Americans certainly have built some very good Battleships in the Iowa Class that included the New Jersey, Missouri, and Wisconsin - and simply proved Admiral Yamamoto's ominous remark about "waking the might of the sleeping giant" prior to launching the Pearl Harbor attack.

Both Missouri and Wisconsin were upgraded with cruise missile launchers and had continued service up till 1991 when both fired cruise missiles and their 16-inch guns at the Iraqi targets during the Gulf War that led to Desert Storm.

SBS2601D SG

The Iowas were fitted with CIWS and Harpoon launchers as well. They could land helos and launch UAVs.

As for weaknesses, the only onse they have must be their size and the amount of manpower needed to man these ships. Manoeuvring these ships through the Iranian mine-fields proved a nightmare, and I don't think the USA is in the mood to reactivate these ships anytime soon due to costs.

As romanista2001 SG

if the Germans weren't forbidden to develop warships after WW1, no doubt they'll build the best ships around, they were already ahead of the world during WW1.

one thing is forsure, the British build the ugliest warships...............especially the Nelson and Rodney............aiyoh.............

one thing about the Iowa class though, i don't think modern missiles can penetrate their armour..................about 13-14 inch thick !

maybe the Russian Sunburn and Onyx missiles can??

weasel1962 SG

I agree UK builds the ugliest. One of the candidates will include the warspite. But more importantly, they were also effective eg warspite records the longest range hit by gun. The hood design was however flawed as Bismarck so clearly demonstrated.

As to Iowa, definitely can penetrate. Tank armour is as thick (or thicker) and is penetrated with small 20lb warhead hellfires.

When facing 13000lb monster weapons (like the AS-6/Raduga KSR-5 or monster AS-4/KH-22 meant to sink armoured deck CVs), definitely sinkable.

One should see what a 500lb LGB does to a tank....

I'm surprised no one has mentioned French (like the unique 4x2 richelieu design) or Italian BBs (with slick names like Vittorio Veneto) in the pageant for beautiful battleships.

Atobe SG

As to Iowa, definitely can penetrate. Tank armour is as thick (or thicker) and is penetrated with small 20lb warhead hellfires.

When facing 13000lb monster weapons (like the AS-6/Raduga KSR-5 or monster AS-4/KH-22 meant to sink armoured deck CVs), definitely sinkable.

One should see what a 500lb LGB does to a tank....

I'm surprised no one has mentioned French (like the unique 4x2 richelieu design) or Italian BBs (with slick names like Vittorio Veneto) in the pageant for beautiful battleships.

Most shaped charges can penetrate the thickest of armour.

The naval architectural design of the day in the 1930s was still influenced by the idea of guarding against the penetration of the cannon ball, while engineers design the ammunition rounds were thinking of creative ways to penetrate the thickest of armor on land and sea.

Shaped charge, tandem charges and those with delayed fuse to allow deeper penetration before detonation - were some of the creative new ammunition to overcome armor.

Concerning the non-mention of the French and Italian designed capital ships of that period - perhaps it could be that they were mostly sitting pretty in harbour and never saw any real actions to prove their worth.

The French fleet surrendered themselves to the Germans when France capitulated by forming a Vichy Government to co-operate with Germany, and the Italian fleet took refuge at their bases and was bombed.

weasel1962 SG

The french did face some action in places like dakar, oran, casablanca in 1940 when the british fleet tried to sink the french fleet to prevent their capitulation to the axis after the fall of france. Also in 1942 torch landings, battleships like the Jean bart fought (and got holed) with the Americans.

As to the Italians, there were a number of surface action in 1941. Other than Taranto which had swordfish torpedos inspiring pearl harbor, the battle of cape matapan is probably the main action which saw italian battleships vs british battleships.

Earlier battles like battle of sirte saw italian battleships inflicting some damage.

As romanista2001 SG

As to Iowa, definitely can penetrate. Tank armour is as thick (or thicker) and is penetrated with small 20lb warhead hellfires.

When facing 13000lb monster weapons (like the AS-6/Raduga KSR-5 or monster AS-4/KH-22 meant to sink armoured deck CVs), definitely sinkable.

One should see what a 500lb LGB does to a tank....

I'm surprised no one has mentioned French (like the unique 4x2 richelieu design) or Italian BBs (with slick names like Vittorio Veneto) in the pageant for beautiful battleships.

you mean modern tanks has armour of 13 inch thickness ? wouldn't the tank weigh way over 100 tons ?

the French Jean Bart don't look good leh, looks very weird ..............but considering they're gonna fight either the USELESS Italians or the Germans, having all 8 guns facing forward makes perfect sense................wah, if they put another quadruple turret in the back ( 12 x 15'' guns )................they might just beat the Iowa............provided their radar as good as the Americans.

i mentioned the Italians leh............the Roma............very nice and slick...........they can't fight lah........... the Germans always end up with useless allies, just like Austria in WW1.........

weasel1962 SG

Not exactly. The Iowa used harvey steel or harvey armour which was developed in the 1890s and I assumed is the equivalent of RHA or rolled homogeneous armour (which I presumed could be the nickel steel plates that harvey steel replaced). 13 inches of harvey steel is probably the equivalent of ~16 inches of nickel steel armour.

Today's MBT use composite armour which may not have the same thickness or weight but definitely has higher protective capabilities compared to 13 inches of harvey steel.

Common estimates of even Leopard 2A4s which the Singapore army just introduced had protection of between 580mm to 700mm equivalent of RHA which converted into inches is actually about 23 to 28 inches of RHA. Some MBTs even have claimed RHAs in excess of 1000mm.

Ships today have better protection eg uses HY80 or HY100 steel. To give an idea, HY120 steel is used for M1 abrams tank (besides the composite armour).

As romanista2001 SG

wah, like that ah.......but wouldn't the modern missile break up when it hit thick armour ? exploding outside the ship won't do much damage leh..................

if those tanks have such awesome armour, how come the much smaller guns of other tanks can fire a shell through their armour ? also seems that they can still be blown up by anti-tank rockets that seem to be so small...........

anyway, back to WW2 warships,.............which one you think is the prettiest ship ? i think Scharnhorst should take the crown.............she's the Megan Fox of warships..............

spartan_6 SG

Beauty is in e eye of e beholder, i like both e Lowa for it sleek look & e Yamato for it aggressive look

spartan_6 SG

E Scharnhorst should had replaced their 9 11" gun with 6 15" of e Bismark but they were not availd during construction

weasel1962 SG

May not have made much difference. With the 11 inches, the Scharnhorst still managed to sink a sizable proportion of British vessels including the aircraft carrier HMS Glorious.

The problem in the final sinking in '43 by the Duke of York was that its main radar aerial was knocked out by HMS Norfolk earlier hence it couldn't return accurate fire. It would have been the case with 15 inches.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/scharnhorst_01.shtml