PDA

View Full Version : Battleship of your heart



gumalangi
03-22-2008, 03:37 AM
Guys, lets have a look at the list, which of the Battleship you like most and state your reasons. And lets not talk about which one is the BEST, every battleship ever had its day.

Cheers,...

I'll go for Yamato,

It is big, imposing, frightening,.. The look, just the look.:mrgreen:

pdf27
03-22-2008, 06:18 AM
Warspite, a survivor from the days when battleships actually meant something (she was part of the Grand Fleet at Jutland), and by far the best name of the lot :D

Nickdfresh
03-22-2008, 05:47 PM
I went for the Iowa, just for nostalgia a since she served off an on for a while...

Y Ddraig Goch
03-22-2008, 07:42 PM
Bismarck, beauty in a functional way

Drake
03-22-2008, 08:02 PM
Bimarck, a real beauty and a legendary tale about her first and only voyage, what else could someone want from a ship.

windrider
03-22-2008, 08:19 PM
How could you forget the Missouri in your list ?
it fought on till 1982, so that's something.

gumalangi
03-23-2008, 06:24 AM
How could you forget the Missouri in your list ?
it fought on till 1982, so that's something.

sorry sir,. the number limitation did,.. otherwise,.. i shall put hiei, mutsu, yamashiro, dunkerque,. prince of wales etc,..

cheers

Major Walter Schmidt
03-23-2008, 10:28 AM
Ise aircraft carrier battleship.

George Eller
03-23-2008, 02:24 PM
-

I like the Iowa class battleships:

45,000 tons
861 feet at waterline, 887 feet - overall, 108 feet - beam, 29 feet - draft
212,000 S.H.P., 33 knots.
9 - 16 inch guns in 3 gun turrets (3 guns each)
20 - 5 inch DP guns in 10 gun turrets (2 guns each)
80 - 40mm AA guns
49 - 20 mm AA guns
Armor: hull belt - 19 inches, main gun turrets - 18 inches

BB.61 Iowa
BB.62 New Jersey
BB.63 Missouri
BB.64 Wisconsin

Best class of American battleships of WWII.

Two additional Iowa class battleships were planned, but cancelled.

BB.65 Illinois - cancelled 12 August 1945 (22 percent complete)
BB.66 Kentucky - construction suspended 17 February 1947 (69.2 percent complete - scrapped in Baltimore, MD in November 1958)

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/8146/bb61iowajt0.jpg
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/6170/iowaclass01ay1.jpg
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/4488/iowaclass02hl6.jpg
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/3931/montanaclassck8.jpg

A heavier class of American battleships was planned, but cancelled 21 July 1943 - model shown above.

Montana class battleships: 5 ships

60,500 tons
890 feet at waterline, 921 feet - overall, 121 feet - beam, 36 feet - draft
172,000 S.H.P., 28 knots.
12 - 16 inch guns in 4 gun turrets (3 guns each),
20 - 5 inch guns in 10 gun turrets (2 guns each),
32 - 40mm AA guns in 8 mounts (4 guns each).

BB.67 Montana
BB.68 Ohio
BB.69 Maine
BB.70 New Hampshire
BB.71 Louisiana

-

Source: U.S. Warships of World War II, Paul H. Silverstone, Doublday & Company, Inc., 1972, pp 29 - 34

-

Moreheaddriller
03-23-2008, 08:42 PM
I gotta say tha NC a small but opposing warship

Churchill
03-24-2008, 07:29 PM
The Hood. Yeah, That's right, The Hood. It was a one of a kind ship that was sent to the wrong place, at the wrong time, in the wrong war...

Dallas
03-25-2008, 07:41 PM
USS Arizona, still on active service, (in name only).

stidham
04-09-2008, 04:07 PM
I gotta go with the Missouri. It was there at the end and also in that Steven Seagal movie. ;)


Later,
Dave

Dark1995
04-13-2008, 06:59 PM
I'd have to go with the Bismarck it fought hard and took lots of hits

RifleMan20
04-13-2008, 09:20 PM
the giant bismark that only last for so little

namvet
04-18-2008, 10:52 AM
ill go with the Missouri. but then thats the state i live in !!!! many cmdrs were very upset she was chosen for the surrender. but Truman was from Independence , mo. and prez's get there way. BTY i graduated from HS in Indep. and I used to see harry take his daily walks by the school every after noon. hahaha
when I was in Nam they deployed the New Jersey. I saw those 16" shells. about the size of a volkswagan. they scared the crap out of the north. at the peace tables in Paris the delegation from the north said send her home or no peace agreement. whats that tell ya ?????

pdf27
04-18-2008, 01:42 PM
I'd have to go with the Bismarck it fought hard and took lots of hits
Bismarck got insanely lucky at Denmark Strait to destroy the Hood (a barely modified WW1 battlecruiser/battleship hybrid) and drive off Prince of Wales (barely in commission, with dockyard workers still aboard). Even so, the Prince of Wales still damaged Bismarck enough to score a mission kill - i.e. Bismarck was forced to abandon it's mission and leg it for France.
In the final battle, it was shot to pieces by King George V and Rodney, without inflicting any significant damage to either of them. The fact it kept floating is irrelevant, and even demonstrates poor design - the armour scheme protected watertight integrity but did not enable it to continue fighting. Fundamentally, it was a 1918 design (the Baden class) with a few minor improvements.

Drake
04-18-2008, 01:52 PM
... and yet she still seems to touch a soft spot at our fellow englishmans national pride :mrgreen:

pdf27
04-18-2008, 04:52 PM
... and yet she still seems to touch a soft spot at our fellow englishmans national pride :mrgreen:
Nah, that's the engineer in me being wound up at people praising a cr*p design. The only halfway decent battleship design of WW2 by the UK was HMS Vanguard, which turned up too late to be of any use. The Iowas were pretty good, as apparently was Richelieu. The UK had a fairly bad mix.
Hood - one of Fisher's Follies, over-aged and under-modernised.
Nelson/Rodney - not bad designs fatally compromised by adhering to a treaty
Queen Elizabeth class - among the best of a bad lot, but a design which predated WW1 isn't really what you want to rely on in WW2.
Revenge class - totally obselete, the biggest contribution these could have made to the war effort was as scrap steel, but instead they were kept on until the end of the war.
KGV class - about as useful as the QEs, the choice of an all new 14 inch turret really hurt these ships badly. Again, a case of bad design forced by political adherence to a naval treaty everyone else was unaffected by.

Cojimar 1945
04-18-2008, 08:12 PM
The Iowa class ships are highly rated by some but they were among the last battleships ever built so have few competitors. Had people continued to design and build battleships they would doubtless have been surpassed.

herman2
04-30-2008, 01:06 PM
Bismarck got insanely lucky at Denmark Strait to destroy the Hood (a barely modified WW1 battlecruiser/battleship hybrid) and drive off Prince of Wales (barely in commission, with dockyard workers still aboard). Even so, the Prince of Wales still damaged Bismarck enough to score a mission kill - i.e. Bismarck was forced to abandon it's mission and leg it for France.
In the final battle, it was shot to pieces by King George V and Rodney, without inflicting any significant damage to either of them. The fact it kept floating is irrelevant, and even demonstrates poor design - the armour scheme protected watertight integrity but did not enable it to continue fighting. Fundamentally, it was a 1918 design (the Baden class) with a few minor improvements.

The Bismarck was a state of advanced technology for its era built with steel imported from Austria with such advanced systems that the alias had even contemplated not bombing it to try and stealing it from the Germans. There can be no doubt that the Bismarck is unsurpassed by all others for its time. Some of its technology is even still used on the advanced warships of today.

pdf27
04-30-2008, 01:29 PM
There can be no doubt that the Bismarck is unsurpassed by all others for its time. Some of its technology is even still used on the advanced warships of today.
I'm sorry, what planet are you on? There's loads of doubt, notably in the fact that it was mission-killed by a faulty battleship with dockyard workers aboard, crippled by an aircraft that wouldn't have looked out of place over the trenches, then shot to pieces by a 20 year old relic and another faulty battleship.

And the technology argument is specious too - some of the technology of HMS Victory is still in use by modern navies, and Victory was still in commission during WW2, but claiming that "Some of its technology is even still used on the advanced warships of today" would rightly get me laughed at.

herman2
04-30-2008, 01:44 PM
I'm sorry, what planet are you on? There's loads of doubt, notably in the fact that it was mission-killed by a faulty battleship with dockyard workers aboard, crippled by an aircraft that wouldn't have looked out of place over the trenches, then shot to pieces by a 20 year old relic and another faulty battleship.

And the technology argument is specious too - some of the technology of HMS Victory is still in use by modern navies, and Victory was still in commission during WW2, but claiming that "Some of its technology is even still used on the advanced warships of today" would rightly get me laughed at.

If the Bismarck was so faulty then why were the British so fearful of it?. Why were the railroads leading from Austria to Germany bombed, during the time the enriched ore was transported to the ship yards?. The technology on the Bismarck was so advanced that the crew had difficulty working with it which caused much of the chaos and downfall of the Bismark. The navigation system utilized on the Bismark is nothing to laugh at. Re: Wartime archive files on the Bismarck. The Bismarck was something to fear!

gumalangi
05-01-2008, 07:33 PM
The Bismarck was something to fear!

Reason wise,.. German has few capital ships,.. and Bismarck and her sister are the biggest of the lot,.. so they are making center page stories over British papers.

and on the top,.. it was not the ship itself feared by the british,. but the threat against allied merchants convoys does really matters,..

However,.. i must agree, Bismarck should be one of the most outstanding battleships of its time,.

Cheers
G

snebold
05-06-2008, 12:58 PM
However,.. i must agree, Bismarck should be one of the most outstanding battleships of its time

In what way, if I may ask?

Well no, Iīd rather propose a worldwide ban on mentioning "Bismarck" in WW2 forums as it always brings the worst up in people!
- those who thinks itīs the most crappy ship ever and canīt understand that it didnīt sink prior to its launch
-and those who think sheīs beyond the state of art as of 2008 and actually invincible, (the Germans just felt like scuttling her that day)

Bismarck and Tirpitz did offer a wet foreship (as did many BBīs), a question of low freeboard, a shallow belt, tripple propellers (which rarely does a ship any good vibration-wise (they were better than the South Dakota class though), a range that worked out less than designed and the best armour quality (quality of the metal, not extent or lay-out), (followed closely by the British), by far the highest metacentric height of any WW2 BB (slower roll, easier to capsize -a deliberately chosen feature of German BBīs since the dawn of dreadnoughts), main caliber guns effective against belt armour at short range, but much less so against deck at long range, a high rate of fire from the main guns (a feature not useful in fx. the Denmark Strait engagement as time between firing at that range was determined by other factors than loading time).

A fault, design-wise was the weight consuming (and old fashioned) twin main gun turrets and seperate batteries for anti-DD and AA work. Like the Mediterrean powers and Japan the Germans could contemplate neither their BBīs working out of range of enemy DDīs, nor that dual purpose weapons could offer adequate protection.
Nor was the dedicated AA armament of 105/65īs adequate against aircraft and Tirpitz lived long enough to have 150mm and 380mm AA shells delivered (none of which could do much to protect the ship from aircraft). How many 128mm weapons they could have carried instead of the 150- and 105mm mix would be a question of space, not weight. A trippling of the main battery (3x3) could have bought a smaller (thus cheaper ship, thus more of them), a faster one, or a better armoured one.

At any rate the value/ton wasnīt good.

albatrosdva
05-07-2008, 10:53 PM
I have to say my favorite would the the Queen Anne's Revenge. But for the purposes of the 20th century I would go with the Pennsylvania. Having planes fly off her at the end of WWI and then being instrumental in the start and for the duration of another war puts her memory in probably more then just my heart.

gumalangi
05-12-2008, 03:50 PM
In what way, if I may ask?

.

i have to admit,. that i like bismarck was due to the fact,. like the reason on why bismarck and tirpitz made headlines over british papers,. they are the biggest of what Germans could throw,.

about technological aspects, designs and so forth,. i was quite ignorant about it at first,. I was tried to find facts on what the ship all about,. i must admit i found that compare to King George V, Iowa, Yamato or other biggest',. Bismarck was quite an average battleship.,.

However my choice was went to Yamato,. :)

HG
05-22-2008, 07:14 PM
The Bismarck.

She was brave and is a legend, but I will also go with the Yamato and Iowa.

Major Walter Schmidt
07-03-2008, 07:31 PM
the "super Yamato" looks pretty cool.
http://www.hs-tamtam.co.jp/goodsimages/22160_1.jpg
pretty much the same except that the triple 46cm were replaced by 2 500mm guns.

Digger
07-04-2008, 07:38 PM
I would go with the Iowa's. Had the Montana's been built they would have been most impressive.

Digger

B5N2KATE
07-05-2008, 12:25 PM
Historically, England had seen other nations rowing boats as a "threat to their maritime security"...

When you Army has been pushed off the continent, your air force getting shot down and wasting it's bombs, when you get a naval victory in the only service that the British could make a significant contribution to the war effort at that stage of the war...

You make the most of it.....

SS Ouche-Vittes
07-14-2008, 02:57 PM
Yamato, but I rather prefer the Japanes fast destroyers. They ambushed and destroyed a couple American destroyers at Guadalcanal. Tokyo Express!!!

namvet
07-14-2008, 03:01 PM
Yamato, but I rather prefer the Japanes fast destroyers. They ambushed and destroyed a couple American destroyers at Guadalcanal. Tokyo Express!!!

there wasn't much to ambush. we went there with very little to start with.

RicemanCDN
12-14-2008, 07:44 PM
would say yamato taht was one mean SOB! :P

Ace Vantura
12-17-2008, 02:19 AM
I would have to go with the Mighty Hood, I think she deserves recognition.
The Hood gets my vote on this one.

Cuts
12-17-2008, 10:49 PM
Bimarck, a real beauty and a legendary tale about her first and only voyage, what else could someone want from a ship.


That it isn't beaten by a wood & canvas biplane ?

;)

tankgeezer
12-18-2008, 02:11 AM
Ise aircraft carrier battleship.

Although an Aircraft Carrier is a Warship, it is not a Battleship. The term is short for "Line of Battle ship" due to their method of tactical deployment in the old days. Might also be referred to as a "Ship of the Line" for the same reason.

namvet
12-18-2008, 10:12 AM
I never could figure out why they didn't convert the Iowa class to nuke propulsion. they spent all that money from the main deck up. but not below. in Nam the NJ cost a million bucks a day to keep it afloat and operational. especially fuel !!!! they were built for a wartime economy. that's one of the reasons they sent her home.

pdf27
12-18-2008, 10:18 AM
I suspect that's your very reason there - "main deck up". If you work below that, you have to cut whacking great big holes in the armoured citadel, shift whatever you're working on through then repair the holes again. That is going to be very, very expensive, and if you're planning to do it every few years to refuel the reactors then that will squash all your fuel savings instantly.

namvet
12-18-2008, 10:54 AM
I suspect that's your very reason there - "main deck up". If you work below that, you have to cut whacking great big holes in the armoured citadel, shift whatever you're working on through then repair the holes again. That is going to be very, very expensive, and if you're planning to do it every few years to refuel the reactors then that will squash all your fuel savings instantly.

you could be right. but they had to have a way to remove the engines for repair replacement or overhaul. could the reactors go in they same way the engines came out ???? that could be a large hatch on the main deck.

pdf27
12-18-2008, 11:04 AM
you could be right. but they had to have a way to remove the engines for repair replacement or overhaul. could the reactors go in they same way the engines came out ???? that could be a large hatch on the main deck.
Not really - chances are the big stuff like boilers, gears, etc. will stay in place for the entire lifetime of the ship. Turbines might be removed, but they actually break down into pretty small pieces.
Problem with reactors, of course, isn't so much the core itself (actually pretty small in a naval reactor) but the safety precautions needed...

tom!
12-18-2008, 12:21 PM
Hi.


Although an Aircraft Carrier is a Warship, it is not a Battleship. The term is short for "Line of Battle ship" due to their method of tactical deployment in the old days. Might also be referred to as a "Ship of the Line" for the same reason.

Ahem, Ise was a full battleship until it was equipped with aircraft handling facilities and catapults for over 20 seaplanes instead of the rear gun turrets in 1943/44.....

Many navies planned similar ships or conversions in the late 1930th but only Ise and Hyuga were remodelled this way. But there were only few surviving seaplane pilots and seaplanes in 1944 so none of these hybrid battleships was equipped with aircraft.

By the way, I prefer the Nagato type battleships.

Yours

tom! ;)

tankgeezer
12-18-2008, 01:15 PM
Sin loi Tom, and Walter,, I had mistaken the statement for a question, "Is Aircraft Carrier (a) Battleship" . I'll go stand in the corner now,,,:)

grenadier99
12-29-2008, 07:26 PM
im voting for the washington for actually destroying an enemy battleship the kirishima.the south dakota also in the area had some equipment failure.which led to that ship not fully participating in that engagement. 3089

3090

Drake
12-29-2008, 08:31 PM
That it isn't beaten by a wood & canvas biplane ?

;)

Well, Bismarck was damaged by a torpedo from a plane, but that could easily have happened to any ship of that era. What sealed her fate (imho even before she started her voyage) was however the RN and the unbelievably miserable odds any german surface vessel faced due to numerical inferiority and an overall crappy strategic position with regards to seapower.
Using a big expensive ship as a Raider is stupid to begin with and imho not only in hindsight, because it only needs to be damaged to jeopardize not only the mission but the whole ship. Bismarck was just the epitome of that stupidity.

namvet
12-29-2008, 08:46 PM
im voting for the washington for actually destroying an enemy battleship the kirishima.the south dakota also in the area had some equipment failure.which led to that ship not fully participating in that engagement. 3089

3090

a friend of my wife's grandfather served on the Washington. I showed her the website and photo's. she was speechless...............

grenadier99
12-29-2008, 09:31 PM
here are a few more washington pics3091



3093

namvet
12-29-2008, 09:37 PM
here are a few more washington pics3091

3092

3093

yeah I saw these. man she got her bow ripped off. the Vestal was sitting next to the Arizona at Pearl Harbor.

Lambo
12-29-2008, 11:06 PM
The USS Texas, second oldest in the US fleet, served in both theaters, including D-Day, Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and now resting quietly and with respect as a museum near Houston.

snebold
12-30-2008, 04:09 PM
Are you aware that the BB-47 Washington, there is a picture here of her launch, is not the same Washington that served in WWII? BB-47 was never completed.

grenadier99
12-30-2008, 08:17 PM
dont know how that happened.....oops not paying attention i guess

Tutor
01-04-2009, 11:42 PM
mine is the IJN Ise Battleship/Aircraftcarrier, Starting the plans for it in 1/72 scale. and if you are woundering it is 10 feet and 6 inchs long. but waiting for the 1/350 by Hasagwa to come out.

Mark G

colonel hogan
01-05-2009, 03:58 AM
totally the bismarck

colonel hogan
01-05-2009, 04:02 AM
this was a great topic!!!!!!!!!!

fastmongrel
01-05-2009, 05:28 AM
I voted for HMS Warspite she might not have been the best warship but her fighting record is incredible. She must have been the best value for money battleship ever built. What a shame she wasnt preserved she would have made a fantastic memorial for the Royal Navy of both world wars.

snebold
01-06-2009, 08:56 AM
I voted for HMS Warspite she might not have been the best warship but her fighting record is incredible. She must have been the best value for money battleship ever built. What a shame she wasnt preserved she would have made a fantastic memorial for the Royal Navy of both world wars.

Yes, itīs hard to understand why that ship wasnīt preserved. The British really felt it was important to recycle older warships into useful metal in the time after WWII, but I wonder if anyone disagree now if I state that they didnīt need THAT metal THAT much! Itīs incredible that the cruiser Belfast (1939) is the only larger ship preserved built later than 1860 from a navy that meant so much to a quite heritage-minded country. (But itīs interesting that Victory (1765) and Warrior (1860) are still around (pure luck in the case of Warrior)).

Greycap Leader
12-24-2010, 02:38 PM
When Warspite was committed to the breaker's yard in 1947, there was a public outcry. Fact is that in any navy, fewer Battleships in history have seen so much action. She was hit 13 times by the Battlecruisers of the high seas fleet whilst her helm jammed. After her second re-construction, she emerged as virtually a new ship, but lost none of her character. Due to HMS Nelson's severe damage after detonating a magnetic mine, Warspite assumed the role of Flagship, Home Seas fleet and took part in the second battle of Narvik, her Swordfish being the first aircraft to sink a U-boat in WW2. She went on to achieve successes in the Mediterranean theatre with actions against the Italian Fleet at Calabria (with a direct hit amidships against the modern battleship Gullio Cesere at thr prodigious range of 13 miles), followed with the night action off Cape Matapan, where in company with her sister ships, Valiant, Malaya and Barham they sunk three heavy cruisers Zara, Paolo and Fiume. She was badly damaged with a 250kg bomb whilst covering the evacuation of crete, necessitating a trip to Bremerton Navy yard in the USA for extensive repairs and refit. Upon returning to the Mediterranean, she was present for the surrender of the Italian fleet. Whilst supporting the landings off Salerno she was hit amidships by a radio controlled bomb, completely destroying a boiler room an putting X Turret out of action. She limped back to grand harbour with over 1500t of seawater. She was so severely damaged that the only way to make her seaworthy was to pour 100's of tonnes of concrete in to her centre section to form a plug, she was repaired after a fashion so that she could achieve approximately half of her normal 24k so that she could make the journey home to form part of the bombardment force covering the Arromanches area of the Normandy invasion beaches. She fire 300+ broadsides at German positions with incredible accuracy which was the hallmark of her operational career. One unfortunate episode of the bombardment operations was that she shot down a P51 which was spotting shot for her, the aircraft was in the trajectory of one of her 15" shells, destroying the hapless Mustang without deviating the shell. After returning to Harwich to have her third outfit of 15" guns, she too went over a magnetic mine, severely buckling her outer hull. She was passed as seaworthy and pressed on to her final battle honour, the bombardment of a heavy fort off Walcheren peninsular, Belgium which was being held by a garrison of German troops and had resisted numerous armoured thrusts by British forces. After several full (6 gun) broadsides, the Fort fell to our troops and Warspite's gallant fifgting career came to an end. Warspite had the last word when she was sent to the scrapyard in 1947, in heavy seas off the Cornish coast, her helm jammed once again and the steel hawsers broke and she drove herself on to rocks off prussia cove. her hull was badly holed and all that could be done was to effect repairs sufficient to beach her on Marazion sands, near the causeway to St Michael's mount. The demolition process was not completed until 1953, and porions of her keel still remain in the sands. There is a stone monument to "The Grand Old Lady" left by the Warspite association to the memory of her sailors and to the spirit of the most valiant warship to have served with the Royal Navy.

My tribute to the lasting memory of our gallant Warspite.
Greycap Leader

Deaf Smith
12-26-2010, 07:34 PM
Here is some real good info on the capabilities of the battleships when push comes to shove.

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

It's a very interesting read.

Deaf

ced381
12-28-2010, 11:56 PM
Iowa! For those two reasons:

http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/us_navy_battleship_photos/uss_iowa_bb61/14_uss_battleship_iowa_bb61.jpg

http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/SHIP_Battleship_Iowa_Front_Firing_lg.jpg

five4
12-29-2010, 10:07 AM
BB-62 The USS New Jersey because...She began her career as the flagship for Adm. Spruance and proceeded to garner 19 battle decorations,the most of any American battleship through out her service life.Commisioned on Dec.7th,1942 and decommisioned for the last time on Sept.12th,1999.She received 9 battle stars for WW II,4 battle stars for Korea,2 battle stars and 1 US Navy Unit Commendation for Viet Nam and 3 Campaign Stars for Beirut,Lebanon and the Persian Gulf,prior to Operation Desert Storm.

Greycap Leader
12-29-2010, 01:11 PM
Salutations,
This topic will always open numerous candidates for this honour. All of the names forwarded have their rightful place in the annals of gallantry. As an objective opinion, The Iowas are widely accepted as the finest class of battleships ever built by any nation, combining an excellent combination of speed, armoured protection and firepower. By direct comparison, our King George V class were blighted by several design shortcomings, all derived from the fact that they were designed to comply with the Washington treaty limitations, the quadruple A and Y 14" turrets were highly complex and as a result the instances of jams blighted these ships throughout their fighting career, During the final action with the Bismarck, the KGV gunnery efficiency was below 30% for extended periods. Looking at the Bismarck and Tirpitz, these excellent ships were built regardless of cost and presented the Royal Navy with a significant problem. Their armoured protection was so effective, that it is estimated that the Bismarck withstood in excess of 240 hits between 6 and 16" during the final action with the home seas fleet, the majority of which were at almost point blank range. The Yamato and Musashi super heavies were incredible vessels and possessed more firepower and armoured protection than any other Battleship afloat, but the extreme cost and effort that it took to produce these ships was far out of proportion to the strategic value that they gave the Japanese nation. My personal favourite warship will always be the Warspite as she was in the thick of fighting throughout her operational career. One earlier correspondent stated that she presented the greatest value to our nation, I cannot agree enough of this appraisal. But as a purely objective view, the Iowas, with their excellent combination of fighting characteristics, wonderful sleek lines and their long fighting careers probably represent the pinnacle of Battleship design. To answer another point on a previous post on the Warspite, there was a national petition to preserve her, but two factors forced the decision to send her to the breaker's yard : a, She was in such a poor state after her battle damage, the cost to repair the outer hull would have been prohibitive, and b, The scrap value at such a time when the Nation was virtually bankrupt. As I have already stated however, fate (or the spirit of the ship as I prefer to belive) prevented her intended fate on the yard on Faslane. An appropriate epitaph would have been for one of her 15" guns to have been placed on display outside the Imperial War Museum. As it is, both of the guns are from "R" Class battleships (Ramilles and Royal Sovereign I think)

May I apologise for the errors in my previous post, the topic is one that I am particularly passionate about, my fingers were going so fast that I did not relaise that I had made so many errors!!. I hope that my testimony has proved of some interest.

Kind Regards,
Greycap Leader

fredl109
01-01-2011, 11:47 AM
Excuse me my friend, but you miss a large fleet, the French fleet, that of my country without being chauvinistic, it was at that time one of the most powerful fleets, not by the number of its ships, but their share of modernities, Indeed if it had been a fight between Bismark and Dunkirk example, the advantage was definitely on the French side, the power of the pieces of French ships of the time though of lesser caliber than their foreign counterparts, was the fact of ammunition that penetrated the shields above the other and having a real focused much higher.
For me this remains the Jean Bart, which remains the finest cuirrasé I know. I had the chance to see him as a child to its home port of Toulon.
Sincerely Fred

fastmongrel
01-02-2011, 09:42 AM
Dunkerque v Bismark at Denmark Strait would not have been an equal fight. Dunkerque was not designed to take on a modern battleship her mission was to hunt down and kill the panzerschiffe commerce raiders and to fight the Italian Conte di Cavor modernised dreadnoughts.

Dunkerque had relatively thin vertical 225mm armour and thin deck armour with not much coverage though her turrets were very well protected. Bismarks armour would be immune to Dunkerques guns in a zone from 10,000 to approx 30,000 metres but her 15 inch guns would be able to penetrate Dunkerques belt and deck armour at all battle ranges. All Bismark would have to do would be to close with Dunkerque get inside the range where the Dunkerques 330mm guns could theoretically penetrate her deck armour with plunging fire and stay at least 10,000 metres away then pound her to scrap.

Dunkerque was not a faulty design she just wasnt designed to go toe to toe with a battleship that outweighed her by 15,000 tons. Even Scharnhorst or Gneisenau would on balance outmatch the Dunkerque but probably not by much.

Jean Bart or Richlieu would have been a better match but even then Bismark probably had the upper hand.

Greycap Leader
01-02-2011, 10:15 AM
Such was the power of the Bismarck class of battleship, a covering force of at least two KGV class were on permanent station at Scapa Flow to cover the Tirpitz whilst she was at anchor in Norway. Fact is that no British or French Battleship could have successfully engaged the Tirpitz on a one to one fight. The only significant advantage which the RN could bring to bear was the advent of centrimetric gunlaying radar, which the USN also used to significant effect. During the Battle of the North Cape, when the Duke of York engaged the Scharnhorst in 20 foot pitching seas, two of her 14" shells found the target from her first broadside having located the target with her radar.

Kind Regards,
Greycap Leader

Deaf Smith
01-03-2011, 10:08 PM
When Warspite was committed to the breaker's yard in 1947, there was a public outcry. Fact is that in any navy, fewer Battleships in history have seen so much action.

Like the carrier Enterprise, the scrapped that one to... why do they destory so much history? Do they want to repeat it?

Deaf

five4
01-04-2011, 08:14 AM
Economics,these gallant leviathans costs tons of money to preserve and with today's fiscal situation communities and goverments just don't have that kind of money to fund such operations.Add to this the fact that the educational systems just don't teach history as it should be taught.Young people today have little intrest and knowledge in the past and the older folks that used to relay and convey this knowledge and used to take their kids and grand kids to visit these living peices of history are fast becoming lost to age and time.When I was a kid it was the coolest thing in the world to us but now,if it ain't at the mall or prime time TV,who cares.

Greycap Leader
01-04-2011, 05:58 PM
Like the carrier Enterprise, the scrapped that one to... why do they destory so much history? Do they want to repeat it?

Deaf

Absolutely, The Big E fought valiantly throughout the Pacific theatre, a real thorn in the side of the Japanese. Where carriers took the place of the battleship of the most important units of any battlefleet, as it is today. I understand that over 20 Franklin class 32,000tn fleet carriers were built in 3 years (I think that the Intrepid is one of this class), it is a shame that the Enterprise, with such illustrious Battle Honours as Midway, Santa Cruz, Guadalcanal and Okinawa,the most decorated ship in the USN, the Enterprise should have been preserved. Only a direct hit from a Kamikaze off Okinawa prevented her from serving throughout the entire Pacific war.

There can be no finer epitaph to a valiant ship and the brave sailors and airmen who served on her.

Kind Regards,
Greycap Leader

Wizard
01-05-2011, 01:25 AM
Absolutely, The Big E fought valiantly throughout the Pacific theatre, a real thorn in the side of the Japanese. Where carriers took the place of the battleship of the most important units of any battlefleet, as it is today. I understand that over 20 Franklin class 32,000tn fleet carriers were built in 3 years (I think that the Intrepid is one of this class), it is a shame that the Enterprise, with such illustrious Battle Honours as Midway, Santa Cruz, Guadalcanal and Okinawa,the most decorated ship in the USN, the Enterprise should have been preserved. Only a direct hit from a Kamikaze off Okinawa prevented her from serving throughout the entire Pacific war.

There can be no finer epitaph to a valiant ship and the brave sailors and airmen who served on her.

Kind Regards,
Greycap Leader

No offense, but there was no such thing as a "Franklin class carrier."

The Franklin CV-13, Intrepid CV-11, and all 22 of their sisters and near-sisters which were eventually commissioned, were known as Essex-class carriers after the lead ship of that class. The Essex CV-9, was laid down in April, 1941, and commissioned December 31, 1942.

The Enterprise CV-6, was a Yorktown-class carrier and was laid down in July, 1934, and commissioned in May, 1938.

Greycap Leader
01-05-2011, 03:46 PM
No offence taken, thankyou for the correction. I am a keen student of the pacific theatre, but by no means is it my speciality. I still find it amazing that over 20 fleet carriers could be built and commissioned in 4 years. Admiral Yamamoto was correct when he said that "I fear that we have awoken a sleeping giant", when he referred to the immense industrial might in the USA. By far it was the Aircraft Carrier which proved to be the most important strategic element in naval warfare in WW2.

Kind regards,
Greycap Leader

Wizard
01-05-2011, 05:38 PM
No offence taken, thankyou for the correction. I am a keen student of the pacific theatre, but by no means is it my speciality. I still find it amazing that over 20 fleet carriers could be built and commissioned in 4 years. Admiral Yamamoto was correct when he said that "I fear that we have awoken a sleeping giant", when he referred to the immense industrial might in the USA. By far it was the Aircraft Carrier which proved to be the most important strategic element in naval warfare in WW2.

Kind regards,
Greycap Leader

Actually, it's not really amazing, but the reasons that the USN was able to build so many large aircraft carriers so quickly have all but been ignored by historians. The conventional wisdom is that the loss of the old battleships at Pearl Harbor forced the "Gun Club" Admirals to rely on the few aircraft carriers for the Navy's offensive punch in the Pacific; this is not entirely true.

The truth is that as early as 1938, the USN planned on building up a large fleet of fast aircraft carriers to to use as the Navy's main striking force. That was the year that the Iowa-class BB's were designed. Their design incorporated a speed of 33 knots which was very costly (in terms of other desirable features), but necessary, if the Iowa-class ships were to escort carrier task forces. Speed was an absolutely top priority in ships operating with carriers, as carriers needed speed to launch their aircraft. Battleships, on the other hand did not need more than about 28 knots to be competitive with other fast battleships.

Moreover, when the original 13 Essex-class carriers were ordered in July and September, 1940, more than a year before Pearl Harbor, the Navy gave the construction of these vessels absolute top priority in funds, materials, labor, and yard space to insure that they would be built quickly. This resulted in the unheard of average building time of 18 months; some were built in as little as 14 months. Contrast that with pre-war American carriers which averaged more than 40 months to build, and Japanese carriers which also took around 40 months to build even in time of war.

Additionally, in mid-1939, the US Navy began ramping up it's pilot training facilities to produce the large numbers of naval aviators which would be needed in a carrier-centric navy. My father was fortuitous enough to enlist in the Navy in 1938 and graduated from pilot training in 1940, subsequently serving on the Ranger CV-4 and the Enterprise CV-6 as an SBD pilot.

It may be that the historians are correct when they assert that the USN was simply fortunate in making these decisions at random, but designing fast battleships with the speed to escort carriers, giving top priority to construction of aircraft carriers so they could be built in less than half the normal time, and training large numbers of pilots that just might be needed, all several years before Pearl Harbor, is just too much of a coincidence to ignore.

five4
01-06-2011, 08:42 AM
Question? Is this the BB thread or the CV thread.....

Wizard
01-06-2011, 01:58 PM
Question? Is this the BB thread or the CV thread.....

It's a battleship thread.

And we're discussing the historical demise of the battleship in the United States Navy.

Valkyrie
01-08-2011, 06:34 AM
Its got to be the Bismarck for me.The greatest battleship ever.

Greycap Leader
01-09-2011, 02:06 PM
The Bismarck and the Tirpitz were magnificent warships, far superior to anything that the RN could deploy on a one to one basis. Fact is though that the Bismarck was doomed by one hit by the Prince of Wales during the engagement in the Denmark strait. Prince of Wales struck the Bismarck forward on her bows, denying her of over a 1000t of fuel oil. she was also low in the bows having shipped in seawater through the damaged section. It was this factor that drove Lutjens to change his operational sortie in to the north atlantic with the Prinz Eugen and to put in to for repairs at the French port of St Nazaire. The RAF Catalina that located the Bismarck heading for port was in fact piloted by an American, as we did not have sufficient trained pilots for the Catalina at that time. The judgement was taken that if the aircraft was shot down, it would have been unlikely if the crew would have been captured or even survived. This is significant though as the US were still officially neutral at this time. Following the air strikes from the swordfish from the Ark Royal, one torpedo struck and jammed her rudder 15 degrees to port. The persuing force of the Home seas fleet (King George V, Rodney, Sheffield, Dorsetshire etc) commanded by Admiral Tovey made the decision to alter course away from the Bismarck in order that upon engagement the following morning, the sun would rise behind her thereby increasing gunnery accuracy. Whereas Lancelot Holland (commander of HMS Hood) had denied John Leach any freedom of manoeuvre during the Denmark strait engagement, John Tovey allowed Dalrymple-Hamilton (commander of HMS Rodney) complete freedom of movement. Dalrymple-Hamilton became the first RN commander to leave the line of battle during an engagement since Horatio Nelson at the Battle of Cape St Vincent in 1797. The Bismarck was coming under considerable fire from all of the major units during this phase, the Rodney blew the Bismarck's "A" turret clean over the side, wrecking both forward 15" mountings. The punishing fire had to be persisted with as she was still under way and firing with her aft guns. Tovey said " Can someone get my Darts, perhaps I can sink her with those". Bismarck had remained afloat after a considerable time, with in excess of 240 hits between 6" and 16", Tovey ordered the Dorsetshire to close and attack with torpedoes, at least two were launched from each side. and it cannot be stated that after such punishing damage that she was sunk, as the remaining survivors on board the Bismarck opened her sluces. Such was the integrity of the Bismarck design is that she is intact on the sea floor, minus her remaining turrets which fell out of their mountings as she capsized. She may have been lost on her maiden voyage, but few sips in history will invoke such powerful emotion.

Regards,
Greycap Leader

five4
01-10-2011, 09:07 AM
At the time,Britain stood alone against Germany and her survival depended on the ocean supply lines remaining open.The biggest threat came from the Bismark and the potential havoc she could reign down upon the shipping lanes as she was deemed faster and with more firepower than anything the British had,though the Hood matched up pretty well she was 20 years older and only carried about half the fuel load and half the deck armour.Some one once said that the Bismark was faster than anything stronger and stronger than anything faster,or something to that effect.

Wizard
01-10-2011, 01:21 PM
At the time,Britain stood alone against Germany and her survival depended on the ocean supply lines remaining open.The biggest threat came from the Bismark and the potential havoc she could reign down upon the shipping lanes as she was deemed faster and with more firepower than anything the British had,though the Hood matched up pretty well she was 20 years older and only carried about half the fuel load and half the deck armour.Some one once said that the Bismark was faster than anything stronger and stronger than anything faster,or something to that effect.

In my opinion, the threat of the German heavy ships to the trans-Atlantic convoys has always been exaggerated. There just weren't enough of them to sink a significant number of logistical ships. The U-boats were far more efficient at the task, yet even at the height of the U-boat's success, they were sinking less than 5% of the cargoes transiting the Atlantic. This was no where near enough to defeat Britain.

The rapid loss of the Bismarck on her very first operational voyage demonstrates the efficiency of the Royal Navy's counter measures against raids by German heavy ships against the Atlantic convoys. The German AMC's were slightly more successful, but the Royal Navy was, after all, essentially a trade protection navy.

five4
01-11-2011, 09:32 AM
You are correct,the actual threat,though low in percentage,of loses caused by U-boats far exceeded what would have been accomplished by battleships,battle cruisers or heavy cruisers. My point was the perceived fear factor that the building and launching of the Bismark caused,which at the time of commission,was the largest to date.She was to be the 1st of a fast battleship squadron to preceed larger main line battleships.The economics of an overburdened wartime industry put an end those plans.I remember the stories told by veterans who worked for Public Service or the Road Dept. would tell us about the mighty Bismark,how big and fast she was,how far and accurate she could shoot, how much damage she could sustain and how hard it was to sink her.But like all great and powerful things there was the achillies heal,the rudder.

Deaf Smith
01-11-2011, 07:13 PM
Keep in mind guys, subs did't shell the Japanese steel mills into rubble. Nor did they shell Henderson Field till it was one big pot hole.

And subs didn't plaster the beachs from Casablanca to Normady and from Tarawa to Okinawa.

The battleship had it's uses, it just stopped being king of the hill.

Deaf

Wizard
01-11-2011, 10:42 PM
Keep in mind guys, subs did't shell the Japanese steel mills into rubble. Nor did they shell Henderson Field till it was one big pot hole.

And subs didn't plaster the beachs from Casablanca to Normady and from Tarawa to Okinawa.

The battleship had it's uses, it just stopped being king of the hill.

Deaf

Don't jump to conclusions that aren't there; no one is claiming that battleships didn't have their uses in WW II, only that commerce raiding wasn't an efficient use of the German battleships and battle cruisers in the Atlantic. If the naval side of WW II proved anything, it was that ships of all types depended on other categories of combatant vessels to be most effective. The most effective navies realized long before WW II that fleets needed to be "balanced"; that is to say fleets, including battleships and aircraft carriers, needed to have specialized combatants to provide ASW screening, AAW screening, and escort against attack by enemy heavy ships.

Twice in WW II, aircraft carriers, due to operational mistakes, were caught by heavy enemy surface ships and damaged or sunk. Battleships provided the best escort against such possible scenarios, and as long as the enemy had operational battleships, it was prudent for the Allies to include battleships in their offensive surface formations.

five4
01-12-2011, 08:50 AM
Then there are the 1,177 reasons why the USS Arizona BB-39 tugs heaviest at my heart.

burp
01-13-2011, 04:40 AM
Battleships as main ship are doomed with introduction of airplane in naval warfare. From 1914 some military officers point that battleships cannot be a match for aircrafts. The experiment in 1921 by Gen. Mitchell proves this theory.
Look at the history of WWI and WWII, and check how many times a battleship fired on another battleship of another Navy. In Pacific theatre, the only war theatre where battleship are employed in naval battles against other battleship in great numbers and many times, how many times US battleships are able to shot to Japanese battleships? Normally US battleship are used as a naval gun support against air or ground enemies while aircrafts from aircraft carrier and destroyers and cruisers get in contact with Japanese battleship, only 2-3 times, i don't remember very well, battleships are able to confrontate each others. The only time that Japanese sunked US battleship is Pearl Harbour attack. Also in European and Russian theatre normally battleship are sunked in harbour for a simple reason: with growing of potence of airplane weapons there is no way to keep battleships safe in open water. How many battleship are sunked by guns of other battleships? For sure, aircrafts sunked 16 battleship in WWII.
Tirpitz sinking demonstrate that there even finest armor require only bigger bombs and Roma sinking demonstrate that stand-off weapons from airplane make useless small AA guns.

Wizard
01-13-2011, 01:59 PM
Battleships as main ship are doomed with introduction of airplane in naval warfare. From 1914 some military officers point that battleships cannot be a match for aircrafts. The experiment in 1921 by Gen. Mitchell proves this theory.

Not really.

The bombing exercises conducted by General Mitchell proved only that any stationary, unmanned, undefended ship could eventually be sunk by aircraft if they were allowed unlimited time in which to bomb it.


Look at the history of WWI and WWII, and check how many times a battleship fired on another battleship of another Navy. In Pacific theatre, the only war theatre where battleship are employed in naval battles against other battleship in great numbers and many times, how many times US battleships are able to shot to Japanese battleships? Normally US battleship are used as a naval gun support against air or ground enemies while aircrafts from aircraft carrier and destroyers and cruisers get in contact with Japanese battleship, only 2-3 times, i don't remember very well, battleships are able to confrontate each others. The only time that Japanese sunked US battleship is Pearl Harbour attack. Also in European and Russian theatre normally battleship are sunked in harbour for a simple reason: with growing of potence of airplane weapons there is no way to keep battleships safe in open water. How many battleship are sunked by guns of other battleships? For sure, aircrafts sunked 16 battleship in WWII.

This is not a very useful measure of the usefulness of battleships. In fact, there were only two occasions on which battleships opposed their opposite numbers in the Pacific, but far more occasions on which battleships were considered necessary units of the fleet, In the Atlantic, Arctic and the Med, in WW II, battleships met and fought numerous battles against each other; it was the aircraft carrier in these theaters which supported the battleship as the main capital ship.

If you are going to count only battleship vs. battleship encounters as useful instances, then the same measure would relegate aircraft carriers to nothing but a footnote in history; there have been only five carrier vs. carrier battles in all of history. That's not very indicative of their true importance.


Tirpitz sinking demonstrate that there even finest armor require only bigger bombs and Roma sinking demonstrate that stand-off weapons from airplane make useless small AA guns.

Not at all.

Again, the Tirpitz was attacked while stationary and had to be attacked again and again before it was finally destroyed; it took great effort by the Allied air forces to eventually eliminate the Tirpitz. The Roma was destroyed by a bomb that happened to hit in a very fortunate spot. The same kind of bomb hit the USS Savannah, a light cruiser, and exploded in it's forward magazine, yet the Savannah managed to return to port under it's own power and was repaired and returned to service. The German guided bombs were eventually rendered in effective against ships by electronic jamming measures.

Deaf Smith
01-13-2011, 10:45 PM
Don't jump to conclusions that aren't there; no one is claiming that battleships didn't have their uses in WW II, only that commerce raiding wasn't an efficient use of the German battleships and battle cruisers in the Atlantic.

I wasn't Wizard. Just saying they were not king of the hill. Yes twice carriers were caught by surface ships, including battleships, but an awful lot of ships were caught by carriers and sunk, without ever seeing the enemy fleet at all.

Deaf

Wizard
01-14-2011, 12:02 AM
I wasn't Wizard. Just saying they were not king of the hill. Yes twice carriers were caught by surface ships, including battleships, but an awful lot of ships were caught by carriers and sunk, without ever seeing the enemy fleet at all.

Deaf

True, which would suggest that adequate surface escort AND air cover was necessary to ensure a reasonable chance of survival on a modern naval battle field. That was the point I raised when I mentioned the value of a "balanced fleet".

burp
01-14-2011, 04:00 AM
What i want to explain Wizard is that battleships life in WWII proves that the new queen of battle group is the aircraft carrier and that in future big naval battles will be fought airplanes vs ships or other airplanes. The WWII demonstrate that the concept of big fleets in line-of-sight that shoot each others with guns is passed away so one of the main reason to keep battleships on active duty doesn't exist anymore.

Wizard
01-14-2011, 01:04 PM
What i want to explain Wizard is that battleships life in WWII proves that the new queen of battle group is the aircraft carrier and that in future big naval battles will be fought airplanes vs ships or other airplanes. The WWII demonstrate that the concept of big fleets in line-of-sight that shoot each others with guns is passed away so one of the main reason to keep battleships on active duty doesn't exist anymore.

I understand the ideas you are trying to convey, but I do not entirely agree with them.

World War II was a period of technological transition in naval warfare, but it wasn't instantaneous, or even uniform around the world. Carriers didn't begin to threaten the position of battleships in naval fleets until the mid- to late 1930's, when carrier-based aircraft began to gain the capability to carry bombs and torpedoes capable of killing the largest armored ships, and attack over ranges of 200 to 300 miles. Until that time aircraft carriers could only be viewed as scouting and secondary combat assets, most useful for screening a battleline composed of armored big-gun ships.

Moreover, this evolution occurred first in the Pacific where the weather was usually mild enough to allow aircraft to consistently operate effectively. In the North Atlantic this was not the case until aircraft became sophisticated and powerful enough to operate in almost any weather; this did not happen until after the end of the war. There was also a learning curve associated with operating aircraft carriers and it was a long one, complicated by rapidly changing aircraft technology and other advancements such as electronic sensors and radio. This learning curve meant that carriers were not used as effectively as they might have been until right at the end of the war.

Thus, aircraft carriers did not suddenly appear on the scene one day and instantly render all battleships obsolete and useless. It was a long process, accelerated by war, but nevertheless lasting several years. As long as some navies continued to operate battleships, carrier fleets could not be entirely secure without heavy surface escort ships, including battleships, and this situation lasted until almost the end of the war.

In retrospect, WW II may be considered the period when carriers came into their own and battleships gradually became irrelevant to naval warfare, but it should be noted that the last clash between battleships, unattended by aircraft, didn't happen until late 1944, just months before the end of the Pacific war. And navies saw fit to retain battleships in service for years after the war, the British battleship Duke of York served until 1949, for example. This wasn't sentimentality, but a hard-nosed calculation that big-gun ships still had their uses.

downwithpeace
01-14-2011, 07:27 PM
Bismark, not really for what she did but the short life and her faith in history.

burp
01-17-2011, 05:23 AM
There is still the debate of effect of naval gunfire from battleship. Surely nowadays cruiser missiles has better precision and range, but as proved in Iraq the psychological damage of being shelled by huge guns of a battleship is far more devastating than being bombarbed from missiles or aircraft bombs.

Wizard
01-17-2011, 04:59 PM
There is still the debate of effect of naval gunfire from battleship. Surely nowadays cruiser missiles has better precision and range, but as proved in Iraq the psychological damage of being shelled by huge guns of a battleship is far more devastating than being bombarbed from missiles or aircraft bombs.

Was any such thing really proven in Iraq?

I remember reading a lot of hyperbole from media journalists at the time about the effectiveness of NGF against troops, but I consider that source to be so unreliable as to be worthless.

I am unaware of any subsequent objective studies comparing the psychological effectiveness of large caliber NGF to the heavy bombardment by aircraft and/or missiles. Perhaps you are aware of some such study and could reference it?

During WW II in the Pacific, it was found that battleship-caliber NGF was actually less effective than high-angle fire from ground-based artillery, even though the ground-based artillery consisted of much smaller guns firing smaller shells. That was why, in the latter stages of the Pacific island campaign, the planners would seek to capture small offshore islands where artillery batteries could be installed to support the main landings.

At Tarawa for example, it was found that high-velocity naval guns fired at such a flat trajectory that their shells sometimes ricocheted off the target, doing minimal damage. The Japanese defenders were not at all impressed by American NGF in the early days of the war.

burp
01-18-2011, 04:22 AM
I cannot now say to you an exact study about it, but the effect of gunfire it's concerning the sound of projectile flying trough air and hitting near you. It's the same reason because Stuka has sound device to make a loud sound before hitting the target.
A lot of books from WWI and WWII talk about the devastating psychological effect of being shelled by big guns, even if your are safe in a bunker, because you hear the sound and feel the impact on the soil.
With bombs and missiles you cannot produce this effect so easily.
The problem of naval gun is that they use fast detonation gunpowder to achieve better muzzle velocity, a key perfomance if you main target is another armoured ship, while ground guns for infantry support use slower gunpowder to save life of their barrels and use lighter barrels. But it can be solved simply using different gunpowder.

fredl109
01-18-2011, 11:43 AM
Hello to all, for my part I would opt for the Roma, who really has a nice line.
Sincerely Fred

5186

Wizard
01-18-2011, 01:07 PM
I cannot now say to you an exact study about it, but the effect of gunfire it's concerning the sound of projectile flying trough air and hitting near you. It's the same reason because Stuka has sound device to make a loud sound before hitting the target.
A lot of books from WWI and WWII talk about the devastating psychological effect of being shelled by big guns, even if your are safe in a bunker, because you hear the sound and feel the impact on the soil.
With bombs and missiles you cannot produce this effect so easily.

It the rotating band on naval shells that makes the eerie wailing sound that accompanies the arrival of NGF. Any rifled artillery, naval or otherwise, will produce the same sound effect. However, I have both heard and read of Vets claiming that a shell which arrives quietly with no warning of it's approach is far more unnerving than one which produces a sound and gives time for troops to take cover. Certain rocket artillery projectiles, as well, as "stand-off" missiles and bombs, do not announce their approach and can be devastating when catching troops in the open. As for feeling the impact of the shell through the earth, that is something that is plainly discernible even with relatively small mortar bombs, and is dependent upon the size if the projectile's bursting charge and proximity of the impact.


The problem of naval gun is that they use fast detonation gunpowder to achieve better muzzle velocity, a key perfomance if you main target is another armoured ship, while ground guns for infantry support use slower gunpowder to save life of their barrels and use lighter barrels. But it can be solved simply using different gunpowder.

I understand the reasons behind the difference between high-angle artillery fire and flat trajectory NGF. And no, different gunpowder will not turn flat trajectory NGF into effective high-angle gun fire. There is a whole slew of problems from fire direction to exhausting the unburned remnants of powder from the breech before reloading a naval gun. Shell design may also be a factor.

Suffice it to say that any shelling is terrifying for those on the business end of it, but the most terrifying of all is that shelling which is on-target and destroys equipment and men with devastating certainty. Big shells do enjoy a certain advantage in this respect no matter what their origin, but as WW II demonstrated, NGF was seldom as effective as concentrated and persistent high-angle artillery fire, except in rare cases where heavily fortified targets were encountered.

Nickdfresh
01-18-2011, 01:40 PM
I've been told that if you hear the shell fire, it's already probably missed you as it's gone over your head....