Comparison of BB's

[m10bob]

An admitted geek makes these comparisons to the battleships of WW2 with some interesting finds and claims.

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

[Orm]

Thank you for sharing. [:)]

However, the competition is flawed since the bestest ship ever, HMS Warspite, was not included. [;)]

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Orm

Thank you for sharing. [:)]

However, the competition is flawed since the bestest ship ever, HMS Warspite, was not included. [;)]

Indeed...some ships are just too good to find comparison.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: Orm

Thank you for sharing. [:)]

However, the competition is flawed since the bestest ship ever, HMS Warspite, was not included. [;)]

Indeed...some ships are just too good to find comparison.

warspite1

I love you guys

[:)]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

An admitted geek makes these comparisons to the battleships of WW2 with some interesting finds and claims.

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

warspite1

Good to see the wonderful SoDak right up there [&o]

I love this ship - but would not want to meet her in a dark alley....

[JeffroK]

I'd like to see this done by time period, say compare those in service Sept 39, Dec 41, Dec 43 & Aug 45.

Bit silly to compare the KGV, VV Or Dunkirk against Iowa, different generations of build.

[Mobeer]

ORIGINAL: Orm
Thank you for sharing. [:)]

However, the competition is flawed since the bestest ship ever, HMS Warspite, was not included. [;)]

Actually you (inadvertently) have a point about the Queen Elizabeth class. They were available for service in time for WW1 and still capable enough for use in WW2. As such they were probably some of the best value for money battleships.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Mobeer

ORIGINAL: Orm
Thank you for sharing. [:)]

However, the competition is flawed since the bestest ship ever, HMS Warspite, was not included. [;)]

Actually you (inadvertently) have a point about the Queen Elizabeth class. They were available for service in time for WW1 and still capable enough for use in WW2. As such they were probably some of the best value for money battleships.

warspite1

Being around in WWI and WWII was not unique to the Queen Elizabeth's; the French, Japanese, US and Italians all had battleships that were on active service in both wars due, no doubt in large part driven by economic necessity together with the effects of the Washington Treaty and the battleship building holiday. Four of the QE's (Queen Elizabeth was in the dockyard surprise surprise [8|]) and two of the R-class are probably more high profile than their foreign contemporaries in terms of service, because they were at Jutland (HMS Warspite's experience at Jutland is all part of her legend of course).

The Queen Elizabeths - or at least the three that could be afforded - were able to be effectively reconstructed because of their initial design features, whereas with the later R-class, it was not considered cost effective to to anything other than a patch up job (as a result their use in WWII was pretty limited for their own safety).

As for value for money, I cannot get exact figures but from what I can see, the cost of Warspite's initial upgrade was around £500,000 and her re-construction in the late 30's was around £2.5m (plus of course their original cost whatever that was). The cost of a KGV was, I believe, around £7.5m (only one source for these costs so may be inaccurate). So it looks like HMS Warspite came in at just over half of KGV's cost - but the KGV had the benefit of more modern design.

Given the above, and then factoring in her length of service (1915-1944) and quality of service provided (Jutland, Narvik, Calabria, Cape Matapan, Crete, Libya, North Africa, Sicily, Salerno, Normandy, Walcheren), the hits she took for the team (shells, bombs, mines, glider bombs) then yeah, there was nothing 'inadvertent' about it - the Ormster speaks the truth [;)]

[Dili]

A very flawed study.

[spence]

Most of the world's BBs never fired their main armament at another ship of any sort.

HMS Warspite for one reason or another ended up in the thick of things on multiple occasions and acquitted itself very, very well. Her class was probably the best of all the BBs of her vintage (though only HMS Warspite actually accomplished much).

Of the "3rd generation" BBs in the comparison none performed particularly well although Bismarck did win one of its two surface engagements against enemy BBs. Interesting that the USS Washington/North Carolina Class doesn't figure in the comparison at all even though the Washington for all intents and purposes fought off 1 IJN BB (not so big as Washington), 2 CA's, 2CLs and 11 DDs single-handed off Guadalcanal. South Dakota's performance in that very same engagement certainly doesn't engender much admiration. But then again neither should the Yamato's performance in her only surface engagement off Samar somewhat but only partially attributable to her rather poor fire control.

By the 2nd half of WW2 the age of the BB was pretty much done. Being the "baddest kid on the block" didn't really matter much since all the kids on the block had "Big Brothers" called airplane or submarine.

[Dili]

Many missed opportunities in the Med for one reason or another. Also the French out of war earlier and Germany not being a naval power didn't helped.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: spence

Of the "3rd generation" BBs in the comparison none performed particularly well although Bismarck did win one of its two surface engagements against enemy BBs.

warspite1

It must be remembered that HMS Hood was a BC - largely unmodified from her WWI era design - and not a BB.

Re other 3rd Generation
- HMS Duke of York won her only engagement (with Scharnhorst) albeit the German 'battleship' was armed with 11-inch guns.

- HMS King George V won her only engagement with (with Bismarck).

So 100% records to Bismarck's 50% [;)]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Many missed opportunities in the Med for one reason or another.

warspite1

Indeed. It is an intriguing what-if to swap Cunningham (and for Supermarina to exert less restrictions) for Campioni. With an aggressive commander in charge, it would have been interesting to see what the Regia Marina, commanding the Central Med, could have done against the overstretched Royal Navy, split between two bases at either end of the Middle Sea. The naval war in the Mediterranean could have been a whole lot different....

Of course in saying that, O'Hara might be right and in pursuing a Nelsonian strategy, the RM may have been destroyed, but I cannot help thinking that the Italian navy could - and should - have made life much more difficult than they did while they had the chance. When the Littorios came on the scene they had more powerful and faster battleships than anything the British could offer, plus a large number of heavy cruisers that the British did not.

O'Hara makes great play of the fact that the RM (unlike the Kriegsmarine or IJN) remained largely intact by 1943 - but I do not understand this argument when the country was kicked out of North Africa and then invaded three years after declaring war... makes you wonder what the navy was built for if it wasn't to help fully prosecute the war.

[Chris21wen]

None of them are any good, the're just targets[:D]

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: warspite1


... Indeed. It is an intriguing what-if to swap Cunningham (and for Supermarina to exert less restrictions) for Campioni. With an aggressive commander in charge, it would have been interesting to see what the Regia Marina, commanding the Central Med, could have done against the overstretched Royal Navy, split between two bases at either end of the Middle Sea. The naval war in the Mediterranean could have been a whole lot different....

Of course in saying that, O'Hara might be right and in pursuing a Nelsonian strategy, the RM may have been destroyed, but I cannot help thinking that the Italian navy could - and should - have made life much more difficult than they did while they had the chance. When the Littorios came on the scene they had more powerful and faster battleships than anything the British could offer, plus a large number of heavy cruisers that the British did not.

O'Hara makes great play of the fact that the RM (unlike the Kriegsmarine or IJN) remained largely intact by 1943 - but I do not understand this argument when the country was kicked out of North Africa and then invaded three years after declaring war... makes you wonder what the navy was built for if it wasn't to help fully prosecute the war.

Often considered by the Italian naval hierarchy between the war and whilst there were changes to and fro, basically the view was the primary purpose of the navy in a war against France and Britain was to safeguard the convoy routes to Libya and the Aegean. For offensive operations thought was given to interdicting the North Africa to France sealanes but this was considered to be quite risky due to lack of adequate supporting airpower.

The Regia Marina did want an aircraft carrier. Even Mussolini had come to the conclusion before the war that an aircraft carrier was necessary. The problem was that there was no money for one. The lack of one severely curtailed pre war planning for offensive operations.

Alfred

[Dili]

I disagree somewhat Warspite.
I think the lack of a day light encounter was more due to chance, faulty recon and operational confusion. An example is the RN raid on Genova. The Italian fleet was headless trying to find the British and receiving late and conflicting messages. Then the Spartivento silliness with naval commander too dependent on what Rome was saying. I have the TROMs and there are maybe ten times that the fleet get out of the harbor to do combat.

[1275psi]

What is often forgotten about the Italians

Little fuel, I can remember reading somewhere that by late 42, they were begging Germany for fuel oil,
that was not to be had

Hard to dominate an ocean when you cannot leave port

Still, my all time Fav book is a battered 1950's copy I have of warspites history
Magnificent ship manned and commanded by men the likes we will never see again

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Dili

I disagree somewhat Warspite.
I think the lack of a day light encounter was more due to chance, faulty recon and operational confusion. An example is the RN raid on Genova. The Italian fleet was headless trying to find the British and receiving late and conflicting messages. Then the Spartivento silliness with naval commander too dependent on what Rome was saying. I have the TROMs and there are maybe ten times that the fleet get out of the harbor to do combat.

I'm pretty sure the main reason for the timid use of the Italian Navy was that Mussolini (like Hitler) forbade any risk-taking because he did not want to lose prestige if a ship or two was sunk. So the British decided if the RM was not going to come to meet them, they would go to the RM. Thus, Taranto, Sirte I and II, and Matapan - all aggressive moves by the British when the enemy were, on paper, stronger.

BTW, Warspite is not the only QE class BB that had a successful engagement. At Matapan, all three British BBs (Warspite, Barham, Valiant) scored first salvo hits on the hapless surprised Italians.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Dili

I disagree somewhat Warspite.
I think the lack of a day light encounter was more due to chance, faulty recon and operational confusion. An example is the RN raid on Genova. The Italian fleet was headless trying to find the British and receiving late and conflicting messages. Then the Spartivento silliness with naval commander too dependent on what Rome was saying. I have the TROMs and there are maybe ten times that the fleet get out of the harbor to do combat.

warspite1

Dili you have just said it yourself 'Then the Spartivento silliness with naval commander too dependent on what Rome was saying' and this was what I alluded to with my comment 'and for Supermarina to exert less restrictions'.

At no time have I said that the Italian Fleet did not leave harbour; again quite the reverse - their problematic fuel situation was exacerbated by the amount of fuel used up in the first 12 months. The issue is whether such fuel usage was wise i.e. largely on escort for North African convoys, as opposed to attacking the British where the RM had the upperhand.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: 1275psi

What is often forgotten about the Italians

Little fuel, I can remember reading somewhere that by late 42, they were begging Germany for fuel oil,
that was not to be had

Hard to dominate an ocean when you cannot leave port

Still, my all time Fav book is a battered 1950's copy I have of warspites history
Magnificent ship manned and commanded by men the likes we will never see again

warspite1

No 1275psi this is not true.

The idea that there was no fuel is an exaggeration; yes, as the war progressed the situation became worse - but the profligate expenditure in 1940/41 did not help (but remember Mussolini only joined the war because he thought it already won) and so that expenditure no doubt seemed like a sound idea.... But even in 1942 the RM were able to field battleships from time to time.