I've heard people quote this often too, but I think most imagine the charge bags lying around in a sort of heap. They were actually stored until needed inside brass-lined metal drums known in Britain as "charge bins" - they still have similar things for the 105 Light Gun - when they would be removed and placed on the ammunition hoist/elevator which would then ascend to the gunhouse. The problem was that the Rosyth battlecruisers removed the lids from the bins thereby negating their protective value. The whole catalogue of safety blunders was recorded by one Royal Marine Warrant Officer Grant. Besides, battlecruisers should never have been used in fleet engagements.

As for the Iowas, they're magnificent ships, but utterly superfluous and in fact a drain on a naval budget that could have better spent the money on the real American area of expertise - carriers. A number of the WWI-vintage US dreadnoughts were horrible coal-fired relics that were painfully slow, had poor acceleration and suffered from vibration problems. Even so, the refits made good use of them, and all performed bombardment duties admirably. Despite the constant lauding, the Iowas had totally unillustrious battle careers, unless you count America's regular post-'45 pygmy-bashing adventures :D. Even then, a monitor could have done those jobs just as well...the Royal Navy kept the 15"-gunned HMS Lord Roberts until 1965.

Apparently, you can still see wee reminders of Warspite down at Prussia Cove. Nothing big - rivets, fittings, the odd bit of 1/2 inch plate, that sort of thing. All the good stuff (armour plate especially) went long ago. Somewhere in that part of the world there are much bigger bits of Torrey Canyon too.

Luckily, somebody had the fiscal sense the cancel the Montanas. ;) Basically an Iowa with one more turret and a lengthened hull.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_class_battleship

A wise decision as it turned out. The Iowa class gave all the service they were called on to give. An additional class would have been a real luxury.

My favourite Battleship, especially from aesthetical standpoint, are the italian Littorio's:

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/9...rio1ei7.th.jpghttp://img170.imageshack.us/img170/872/roma1ky0.th.jpg

Best Battleships?: Without doubt, Yamato & Musashi. They both took a lot of damage so their protection was obviously not bad. Firepower was massive and they had huge and excellent optics.

Vanguard must have been also a pretty good ship: A very reliable armament with the overall excellent 18 inch guns which were improved and developed over 30 years - all in combination with a well-protectected and balanced hull and armour system built with the experience of two world wars and many fought battles.

Bismarck is a beautiful and famous ship - it was a good balanced design. But it had several weaknesses especially a protection scheme based on the latest WWI designs with lower fighting distances. It didn't feature an all-or nothing armour concept - by using that some weight could have been saved and used for a stronger horizontal protection instead.

IMO, kind of a pointless poll. Arizona was commissioned in 1916, and based on a class designed in 1913. Despite updates, she was basically antiquated compared to Bismark or Yamato. She would have been comparable to an IJN Kongo or Fuso class, or a German Konig class - something like that anyway.

It would be like asking what's better, an Arleigh Burke class or a Gearing class - but the two just are not really comparable.

The problem there is that they were authorised in 1937, ordered in 1939 and laid down mid-1940; all long before the superiority of airpower was recognized. Taranto was in 1940, Pearl Harbor in December '41 and Midway in June '42, by which time the four ships were well on their way to completion.

Besides, Congress recognized that they had plenty of money to spread around, and they completed more than 100 aircraft carriers during the war. Would more have been built - or needed - if the Iowas had been cancelled. Also consider that the existence of Yamato and Musashi were part of the justification for those ships, and they made sure that the US ships outnumbered the big Japanese ships 2-to-1.

I do not believe I said they were. Fact is in any battle enough were exposed at any one time that a rightly placed splinter could cause a disaster. The results seem to indicate that as well.

You mean "British" battlecruisers. German versions did very well, again, as far as results proved.

Perhaps you skipped what i said on these. I agree and believe I stated such

Korean vets as well as those in Nam and the Gulf would disagree with your opinion. For one they were (with drones) extremely accurate and used old ammo that no longer cost anything as it was surplus. The Viet Cong claimed the two things they feared most were B-52s and the New Jersey. They did not have our luxury of distance observation just the sudden crash of huge HE from nowhere. The cruise missiles also were effective from Iowas and they could carry a bunch and while I still agree they were too expensive we also have the luxury of hindsight which they could not afford when these ships were authorized.
Reagan put them in service to counter the Kirov class which we labeled as battlecruisers and in military circles tit for tat, as dumb as later it proves, is just how things are done
However, in 1968 I was asked to submit an opinion on what would amount to a useful Vietnam support ship. While my idea was bigger than a monitor it would have used a 12' turret form Alaska type with a helio-deck for attack copters but not much different than an over sized monitor. I also pointed out using the Iowa type was more practical than the cost of building a new ship that may have limited future value

I am still upset that ship was not made into a museum. A disgrace to British history, IMO!~!

As for Yamato being great they were simply over sized not great at all. Their 18.1 inch guns were mediocre and their extra size meant a few more inexpensive bombs and torpedoes over something costing millions less. Plus, they were so costly to operate they sat most of the war in port. The Kongo class (British Tiger class CBs) rebuilt as fast battleships were the only useful Jap BBs.

Vanguard had the same 381MM (15") guns as did the other older ships like Hood, R-class and QE class. the 4 turrets were in reserve and the ship was built to use them. It was the best Brit BB as it had very good fire control and was very stable.

Bismarck was the last hoorah for the outdated concept of the mammoth steel floating castle. Her voyage was the ultimate sea story as is shown by how much has been written about it since. Her design was conservative but it is inaccurate to say she was a WWI German battleship design.
She was a 4 turret Scharnhorst with heavy above main belt armor and Scharnhorst was based on the Mackensen class CB not on Bayern.
Again, when Bismarck was designed it was to counter Jean Bart not to fight what the still unknown of WWII reality was.
It was Panzerschiff made Dunkerque made Scharnhorst made Littorio made Richelieu made Bismarck
Tit for tat. It is how one scares governments into spending large amounts of money on vague perception. The only really useful ships were the 3 Panzerschiff types. They too, however, would have been useless after 1941

Wulfmann

I don't believe that you said it either. I wasn't referring to or addressing you.

That would be expected, since the German ships were designed, keel up, to form part of the battle line or be in the van of any fast action, as opposed to the armoured cruiser-smashers of the RN.

It's only post-1919 that the German ships became widely known as battlecruisers, and I don't believe the Kaiserliche Marine ever referred to them as such. It's a lazy Anglocentric description. The two represent entirely different concepts, and it's a triumph of brain-damaged comparative logic that they have been lumped together.

I didn't read what you said at all, I'm afraid. I was offering my own thoughts apropos of nowt. Think you might have jumped the gun a bit, old sword.

The cost of war-stock shells is the least of it - I wonder what the monthly cost of fuel and maintainence for one 50,000 ton battleship (plus food and pay for over 2,000 crew) is, and how it stacks up against B52 or B58 strikes.

As for the old chestnut about Mighty Mo' and her sisters striking sheer icy cold numbing terror into the hearts of inscrutable Commie gooks everywhere (I'm paraphrasing here)...I have heard reasonably big guns too, and they all sound enormous. Even Rarden sounds like a field gun when going overhead.

Besides, I would have thought that the obvious thing that frightened the Viet Cong was dying, regardless of circumstances.

Spot on. An even poorer investment than the USN's Iowas were the Yamatos for a resource-starved Japan. For the majority of the war the Yamato and Musashi sat in Truk Lagoon and then Palau idle at anchor. Officially they were waiting for a giant decisive fleet battle with the U.S. Navy, but other than occasionally running away from air raids or briefly chasing false leads about the location of the U.S. Fleet they pretty much sat around, trying not to waste fuel. At one point the Musashi was even pressed into use as a freighter with bombs, fuel and equipment lashed to the deck, making it surely the worst designed freighter in history. This unsurprisingly came to nothing however as heavy seas started moving the cargo and it had to be thrown overboard.

At the same time the old Kongos did the heavy battleship lifting in the Solomons. The Kongo Class were the only Japanese battleships fast enough to scuttle in to bombard Henderson Field at night and then be far out of the range of aerial retaliation by daybreak. The Hiei and Kirishima eventually paid the ultimate price dying in pitched night battles.

The history of the remaining Japanese battleships classes is rather ignominous. The Fuso and Ise classes were too old and slow for carrier escort duty. The Fusos were eventually sacrificed at Leyte Gulf. The Ise Class were converted into carriers without planes or pilots. One of the Nagato Class, the Mutsu simply blew up in 1943 while anchored in Hiroshima. Nagato ended up as atomic fodder at Bikini Atoll.

Yamato worship is weird. Bismarck worship is slightly less weird. I've always taken it as a big creepy naval penis-measuring contest - "my battleship's bigger than yours" sort of thing. I'm glad no old matelots from those ships use the internet, God only knows what they'd make of it.

Well said. I have always compared ships to soldiers:

Destroyers are like footsoldiers: they do the fighting and dying.

Cruisers are like sergeants: they direct everything, and are efficient at killing when they have to be.

Battleships are warriors like Hector and Achilles: they stand brave and tall, they kill a lot of the enemy and there are very few of them, so when they finally fall everyone sees it and weeps and wails.

Of course our submarines are like secret agents and saboteurs: they sneak in and destroy something, and then try to sneak away again.

Not many of them left I should imagine :hmm:

More good points from all.

The bottom line on the Iowas is we did not know they would be white elephants when being built. Looking at a 1942 Jane's no one knew what the Japs were up to nor did we have the advantage of our hindsight.
But, quite true they were expensive to operate and in reality not worth their money.
Practically!!
However, that is the practical aspect and anyone that has seen an Iowa coming into port knows the term "Battleship Diplomacy" is a striking bit of awesomeness.
Nothing carries the appearance of raw power as do huge gun turrets. The fact it is only a perception by comparison is irrelevant.
Perception is reality to those that are doing the perceiving and battleship gun turrets say it like nothing else can.

Wulfmann

Had the pleasure of visiting Missouri when she visited Sydney. As a history buff it was a blast (pardon the pun!).
There was a picture of her firing a full broadside off the coast of Sydney - wow!!
At least I felt confident we, the Aussies, weren't ever going to be looking down the wrong end of those huge barrels!

After 9/11 you can't get on board visiting ships - sad (but obviously understandable).

Cheers

None of them get my vote.

The Arizona gets the flick as she was the oldest and least up to date of the three. The Bismark was based on the Bayern Class battleship from WW1 ( a modernized version, but simlar layout), IT had a short but spectacular life, but it still gets the chop. The Yamato gets the flick as well, due to it the things listed in the in the first post comparing battleships.

The Iowa's were the best overall, but I do have a soft spot for HMS Warspite;)