My top 5 WW2 Battleships what's yours ?
 

Another opinion piece this time about the battleships my top 5 let's see if you agree or what would you make as a top 5 ?

https://www.immortalwordsmith.co.uk/...o-battleships/

I've seen many such lists over the years, and in my own opinion it really comes down to nothing more than opinion.

How do you rate them? Looks? Power? Fulfillment of intended purpose? People have been arguing about this for more than seventy years, and nothing ever comes of it because as always everyone has what they think are good reasons for their picks, and the more the discussion goes on the more they are convinced they are right.

The same applies to questions of who had the best aircraft, the best submarines, the best tanks. The only reason battleships are different is that the groups tend to be very small. I used to compare ships to ancient Greek stories. The destroyers are like the common soldiers, there being many of them and while one or another sometimes stands out on the whole they are looked at as a group. The cruisers are the commanders. They end up being nameless in the stories but without them there would be no stories. The battleships are the heroes: Achilles, Hector, Odysseus, Paris. They are the big names, the men of prowess, the ones who when they win are heaped with glory and when they die their deaths are also big news. All that said, their only real purpose is to be the biggest and the best. They don't really further the outcome of the war and they aren't nearly as important as the news and the storytellers would make them out to be. That said, we're all suckers for the big story.

But that's just my opinion.

I've always found these to be attractive. :up:


https://i.pinimg.com/564x/59/a2/37/5...a564800b6d.jpg

Yes, the Pagoda mast did make them look awesome back in the day :yep:

Taking onboard what Steve says has its merits but in order to answer the original question I would base my answer not on factors such as armament, armour thicknes, speed etc. but simply on what the vessel achieved in said career so IMHO the choice for me would definitely be Bismarck.

^ I'm not so sure the Bismarck would be the top for me. The Bismarck was a fierce some vessel to be sure but also short lived when it finally did see action. As Steve said in his brief analysis, it really is hard to pick a ship as they all had their merits. Certainly speed, offensive capabilities, armour protection and longevity would be a likely place to establish a criteria. You said that as well, Jim. I have no doubt that had P.M. Winston Churchill not given the orders to ruthlessly hunt down Bismarck and destroy her, after the Hood was destroyed, Bismarck would have been the scourge of the Atlantic.


I always liked the Iowa class along with the Yamato. Again, that's just an opinion. The Yamoto took the biggest guns to sea at 9x18.1 inch guns and 12x 6.1 inch guns and other weapons, it was fierce some. With a max speed of about 27 knots, it was fast as well. I wouldn't have wanted to see Yamoto as an adversary.

Iowa class, and for me it's not really close. If I have to pick a ship instead of a class I'll say New Jersey for reasons.


War is terrible, and the cost is severe. However, I will always wish that Bull hadn't run and Task Force 34 had indeed been waiting at the San Bernardino exit on the morning of October 25, 1944.


I suspect if it had, much of the debate of which battleship was superior would have been answered.

A potentially interesting, but ultimately disappointing thread



Back to politics, games and celebrity deaths we go :salute:


So I conclude the Iowa class won the debate haha

The Iowa rates number one in my view

This article is not based on facts figures or anything like that it is opinion and based mainly on favourites

When comparing a centuries old class of ships, the only fair comparison would be a head to head fight with crews of equal quality and in that scenario the Iowa class as the most technically advanced would reign supreme. I don't care how powerful or effective any class of Battleships were in their day, they aren't going to be able to beat an Iowa armed with tomahawk missiles and 21st century fire control systems.

Gonna go with my home state here and give a shout out for the Iowa class battleship Wisconsin, built in Philadelphia Pennsylvania now located in Hampton Roads Virginia.


https://i1.wp.com/militaryhistorynow...60%2C374&ssl=1

Too bad we didn't finish a Montana class or three before the war ended.

THROW IN THE KATIE NUKES RUMORED TO HAVE BEEN ABOARD USS IOWA AND IT'S THE 4 IOWAS' HANDS-DOWN! http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2604299&postcount=2736

1. Iowa class
2. Bismarck
3. HMS Hood
4. Yamato class
5. KG5 class


No particualy order just my favourites :yep:

I expected a stiffer defense for other ships, particularly Yamato and Musashi.


When folks compare warships, and battleships especially, they tend to focus on speed, firepower and armor. Those are essential components of any battleship, and comparing these is useful. But it is far from the whole story.


Perhaps equally important are factors such as damage control, fire direction, armor quality, design and placement, intra-ship communication, optics, crew training, leadership, ordnance design and quality, underwater protection and tactics (both those actually used in the engagement as well as the range of tactical options available to the skipper).



All of this debate can be rendered moot with a single shell. A single naval rifle strike on a vital component can end the argument. All ships are capable of a first-salvo strike. But for the purpose of evaluating a hypothetical engagement between these ships it is more useful in my view to determine the probability of such things occurring.


Of the five ships mentioned in the article, two I think can be scratched off the list straight away. Warspite, and to a lesser extent, Hood, were not in the same class as Bismarck/Tirpitz, Yamato/Musashi or the Iowas. King George would have been a better choice for this list than either of those. But a King George was closer in fact to the American's North Carolina class than Iowa. As a 'treaty ship', the King George was naturally handcuffed.



So for me, this comes down to post-treaty Bismarck vs Yamato vs Iowa.


As I've already stated, I feel the Iowa is the clearly superior ship, and when the 'soft' factors such as construction quality, training, tactics, and damage control are considered, the Iowa stands even further in the lead. The Yamato used voice tubes for instance, which had questionable utility in the heat of battle compared to radios.



But what really separates the Iowas from their contenders is fire control. It's often mentioned, but under-appreciated how effective the fire control was on Iowa-class battleships. Folks may assume it made the ship's rifles accurate, which of course it did. But fewer know that the Iowas could hold that gunnery solution through all sorts of maneuvers.



In either a Iowa vs Bismarck or Iowa vs Yamato engagement, three factors settle the question in my mind. Speed, fire control and tactics.


The Iowa was faster than either of the other two. It seems that when folks debate these what-if scenarios, they assume the two ships are each within range and slugging it out. Unless the American ship is skippered by a moron, this type of battle is unlikely. A competent captain would take advantage of Iowa's speed to decide when battle was joined. And none of the Iowa captains were morons. There are other, non predictable factors that may influence it, such as available room for maneuver, weather, visibility and time of day. Battles don't occur in a vacuum. The closest the Iowas and Yamato came to meeting, at the eastern exit to San Bernardino Strait is an interesting case. By necessity the American ships, in open water would have been at an advantage until such time that the Japanese could emerge from the confined waters, assuming in the first place this could be possible at all.


The Center Force would have been steaming straight in to a crossing of the T, with all the attendant disadvantages that creates.




For our purposes though let's assume a one v one, open ocean meeting.


In such an engagement, the American ship can simply shadow the opponent until such time as conditions are right for battle, as was doctrine. The Iowa's speed advantage allows this to happen. That speed also allows the Iowa to fire accurately near the limit of her range, and maintain that distance, exposing the Yamato or Bismarck to plunging fire that neither ship could hope to match.


What I believe would happen though is that the Iowa would maintain that shadow until nightfall, where it's superior fire control would have been even more pronounced. Both Bismarck and Yamato would be at a severe disadvantage in such a scenario, despite the Japanese reputation for night actions.



Ultimately though it's the superior design, crew and capability of the Iowa over either challenger that allows the Iowa to best utilize it's advantages while mitigating those of it's opponents.


All three were (and in one case still is) amazing warships. The debate is an interesting one to me. As I mentioned, the fact Bull ran robbed us of the one opportunity to have two of these ships come face to face. The result of that engagement would have been enlightening, but alas.


Still, it's endlessly interesting to discuss.


Edit: OP did not write the list as best battleship, but favorite. I scratched the Warspite and Hood in the 'best' argument. But clearly that's not what the list was intended to be.

I like the Musashi because it had a better communications suite than the Yamato.

Hmm...that's the second time I've used that word. Suite? I may have mispelled it earlier.