ANYONE INTO WW2 WARSHIPS ?
-
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
-
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
-
Essex carrier.. The warship that won the pacific war in WWII.
-
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.....................
-
Originally posted by zenden9:
Essex carrier.. The warship that won the pacific war in WWII.
carriers are ugly....................only the Taiho looks quite okay..........
-
Originally posted by As romanista2001:
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.....................
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.
-
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............
-
Originally posted by As romanista2001:
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.
-
Originally posted by As romanista2001:
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............
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.
-
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.
-
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??
-
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.
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
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.
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
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.
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.........
-
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).
-
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..............
-
Beauty is in e eye of e beholder, i like both e Lowa for it sleek look & e Yamato for it aggressive look
-
E Scharnhorst should had replaced their 9 11" gun with 6 15" of e Bismark but they were not availd during construction
-
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
-
Originally posted by spartan_6:
Beauty is in e eye of e beholder, i like both e Lowa for it sleek look & e Yamato for it aggressive look
Iowa looks most modern with the low bridge and superstructure.................but a little too industrial-looking..........
Yamato looks very elegant except for the conning tower...............apart from that, very beautiful............
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
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
since the Germans have so few capital ships, they were ordered not to engage any enemy as strong as themselves so no point for Scharnhorst to have bigger guns..............11'' guns may be small for her size but enough to kill heavy cruisers guarding the merchant convoys.............
pure bad luck the Duke of York hit her engine room and slowed her speed..............the only thing Scharnhorst could have done is to run for it, i don't think her 11'' guns can do much damage to a battleship.
-
Agreed. There would be no way the Germans could have built enough capital ships to challenge the 20+ battleship/ battlecruiser British fleet. They tried that in WW1 and failed. The world war 2 strategy would have been successful too if not for the US entry.
When one examines the numbers.
Royal Oak (U47), Barham (U331) - sunk by subs
QE, Valiant - damaged by commandos/human torps
Prince of wales/Repulse - sunk by aircraft
Only the Hood was sunk by a BB (Bismarck).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battleships_of_the_Royal_Navy
The problem was also strategy. If Germany had carried out operation Felix or captured Alexandria/Suez (instead of the Italian debacle in Ops compass), this might have freed the 6-7 battleships of the Italians.
But once the US navy comes in, they had something like 20+ battleships, one can't fight a surface warfare battle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battleships_of_the_United_States_Navy
-
aiyah.............the Italians can't do much even if they have the biggest and best navy...............ask them to play football or design cars and clothes they can lah, ask them to fight leh.................sigh...............
anyway, Germany wasn't meant to win the war.............the top leaders were all ''compromised''..........the biggest naval ''kelong'' was the MIS-construction of the Elektro u-boats...............if not for that ''own goal'', those subs would have sunk enough ships to force Britain to her knees...........
-
True, wat e Germans battleships lack is AAA which r quite mininmal for their ships considering e aircraft threat they face