NationStates Jolt Archive

Just wondering what everyone thinks is the best battleship ever built. My personal choice would be the Iowa class, or had the Vanguard been given 16'' instead of the leftover and outdated 15'', then it might be my choice.

I don't really like battleships. They are really only good for killing people. What's so cool about that?

I know little about battleshiips, but from what I know, it'd have to be the Iowa class. They were technologically sophisticated up until their retirement in the 1980s.

Well, going from 1945 standards at least, giving the Iowa's their 1980's abilities is a bit unfair to the other ships.

And as for their coolness factor, I never said they were cool, just what you thought was the best. And out of curiosity, who picked the Bismarck

please wait while I check my Jane's Warships (actually grandpa's but who cares?). Will be back soon.

Well, going from 1945 standards at least, giving the Iowa's their 1980's abilities is a bit unfair to the other ships.


True. There were hardly any battleships left, then. Why did we use our battleships all the way until the 1980s? They are pretty much useless against an air attack, and even had a limited use in WWII. They weren't nearly as important as aircraft carriers.

The Iowa without a doubt. While the Yamato had a more powerful armament, it was notoriously unreliable. See my site for more details:

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

The Bismarck was only impressive for it's size, nothing else, it had a horrid AA armament and deployment of guns, it also had optics that were superior to their British equivalents however. It was far too heavily based on the Bayern class, than any WWII era ship. It's armour wasn't setup to deflect plunging fire, which was far more accurate by this time, and it lacked good protection against it.

The Yamato had better AA than the Bismarck, and some of the best optical sights in the world, but could not compare to the Fire Control abilities of the British and especially the Americans. It's armor was better suited to a WWII ship than the Bismarck, and it had a solid main armament, but lacked fire control radar, which might've given the Iowa a major edge in any engagement.

The Vanguard as I said, had the best AA of any ship of it's time, good speed, and decent armor, but it was undergunned with it's outdated 15'' guns, it should have been given 16''.

True. There were hardly any battleships left, then. Why did we use our battleships all the way until the 1980s? They are pretty much useless against an air attack, and even had a limited use in WWII. They weren't nearly as important as aircraft carriers.

They had a major use in WWII, they were critical for shore bombardment, and provided massive AA cover for the Carrier Task Forces. We didn't really use them until the 1980's, after 1950, we mothballed them for the most part, pulling out one or two at certain times (Veitnam), as part of Reagan's expansion, they were modernized and showed the Battleship still had effective use.

The USS Missouri has the honor of being the only battleship to have enemy land forces surrender to it (in the Gulf War). A single Iowa off the coast of Vietnam was so intimidating that the Vietnamese demanded it be removed before peace talks could continue. A Battleship can put down as much fire and destruction with it's 16'' guns in a nhour than an entire Carrier Air Wing can in a day, it's problem is it's range. In my opinion, at least one of them should be brought back into service, currently the USN has a serious lack of Naval Artillery Support Capabilities.

How many hits did it take for the Yamato's sister ship to sink?

And take several hours to do so?

How many hits did it take for the Yamato's sister ship to sink?

And take several hours to do so?

The Shinano took only a torpedo, but it really wasn't the Yamato's true sister ship, it was just supposed to be. But I believe you are referring to the Musashi

Yamato class? There's a Gundam SEED character named Kira Yamato, so that makes it of some interest. Aircraft carriers are even dumber than battleships, though. They don't even fight. They just launch airplanes. What's so cool about that?

They had a major use in WWII, they were critical for shore bombardment, and provided massive AA cover for the Carrier Task Forces. We didn't really use them until the 1980's, after 1950, we mothballed them for the most part, pulling out one or two at certain times (Veitnam), as part of Reagan's expansion, they were modernized and showed the Battleship still had effective use.

The USS Missouri has the honor of being the only battleship to have enemy land forces surrender to it (in the Gulf War). A single Iowa off the coast of Vietnam was so intimidating that the Vietnamese demanded it be removed before peace talks could continue. A Battleship can put down as much fire and destruction with it's 16'' guns in a nhour than an entire Carrier Air Wing can in a day, it's problem is it's range. In my opinion, at least one of them should be brought back into service, currently the USN has a serious lack of Naval Artillery Support Capabilities.
It has psychological apeal, but not much else. Aircraft carriers have more firepower than most small nations do. A single F-15 on one aircraft carrier has artillery capabilities that battleships can only dream of. For one, none of the new war planes have ever lost an air battle, so that's basically all the AA support we need. For another, they all have incredible range, probably far superior to those of artillery guns on battleships.
As for the USS Missouri, I saw it in Pearl Harbor. I thought it was more of a museum than a functioning warship. Nevertheless, even though ground forces surrendered to it, it was easy to get ground forces to surrender in the Gulf War. The Iraqis even surrendered to unmanned drones.
Besides, the battleships are all in reserve in case they're needed.

How many hits did it take for the Yamato's sister ship to sink?

And take several hours to do so?

The Musashi withstood 19 torpedo hits and 17 direct bomb hits, all from carrier planes from the Essex, Intrepid, Franklin, and Cabot.

The Iowa without a doubt. While the Yamato had a more powerful armament, it was notoriously unreliable. See my site for more details:

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

Great site, wanted to post it to. Iowa class! But besides Yamamoto aso, I found the Vitorio Veneto great to, for me the most elegant.

It has psychological apeal, but not much else. Aircraft carriers have more firepower than most small nations do.

The problem being it takes a long time to deliver that power, a Battleship is many timesmor effective for supporting an amphibious operation than an Aircraft Carrier, which must maintain a far distance, and it's firepower equivalent of a day's worth of sorties can be delivered in a single hour by a battleship.

A single F-15 on one aircraft carrier has artillery capabilities that battleships can only dream of.

In terms of range, but the 2,400 lb 16'' shell delivers a far more massive artillery strike than a single F-15.

For one, none of the new war planes have ever lost an air battle, so that's basically all the AA support we need.

BB's are useless as AA battlewagons now, they were great in WWII becuase things like 40mm Bofors were effective, and they had plenty of room.

For another, they all have incredible range, probably far superior to those of artillery guns on battleships.

They definitely have far greater range then a BB can dream of.

As for the USS Missouri, I saw it in Pearl Harbor. I thought it was more of a museum than a functioning warship.

It isn't a functioning warship, neither are the other 3 Iowa's.

Nevertheless, even though ground forces surrendered to it, it was easy to get ground forces to surrender in the Gulf War. The Iraqis even surrendered to unmanned drones.

It was the Missouri's unmanned drone they surrendered to, after an hourlong bombardment by the Missouri

Besides, the battleships are all in reserve in case they're needed.

2 of them are museums, another is listed as reserve, but is in no way ready without a major overhaul, and the third has been illegally towed by a congressman who wants to make it into a museum, the Navy is just not inclined to care.

You forgot the Scharnhorst class battleships.
They managed to give the Allies a really tough go of it,yet there were only two of them.
The Brits bombed one in port, and the other one was scuttled in '45 in a desperate gambit to deny the Allies a port

i dont know the all the tech. of the diff. classes of battleship, but i know in WWll the allies threw everything thay had at the bismarch without success. Thats y i voted for it. The irony was it took 1 obsolete biplane and a lucky torpedo shot to sink her.

Great site, wanted to post it to. Iowa class! But besides Yamamoto aso, I found the Vitorio Veneto great to, for me the most elegant.

If I was picking on terms of elegance, the Dunkurques and the Vittorio Veneto's would definitely be my pick. The Italian ships were all beautifully streamlined, they just were no match for RN ships, lack of radar wasn't the only thing going against them.

i dont know the all the tech of the diff. classes of battleship, but i know in WWll the allies threw everything thay had at the bismarch without success. Thats y i voted for it. The irony was it took 1 a obsolete biplane and a lucky torpedo shot to sink her.

The Bismarck's last stand is overrated, of all the hits it took, examination of the wreck revealed only 3 were major hits, the rest were inconsequential or below the waterline. And that one obselete seaplane did not sink it, it damaged it's rudder, it took the King George V and Rodney, plus a salvo of torpedoes to sink her (or the crew to scuttle her, depending on who you believe).

It's major success is supposed to be the HMS Hood, but the Hood suffered even worse problems than the Bismarck, the Prinz Eugen probably could've sent her to the bottom. She, like the Bismarck, was not protecting against plunging fire, and had horrid turret and ammunition protection.

Actually, the allies bombarded the Bismarck with a battlecruiser (which Bismarck sunk), then disabled the rudder with Swordfish biplanes, and then finished it off with cruisers.

Bismarck's sister ship, Tirpitz, was sunk at port by heavy Lancaster bombers dropping 12,000lb. bombs on it

leastaways, thats what i read.

You forgot the Scharnhorst class battleships.
They managed to give the Allies a really tough go of it,yet there were only two of them.
The Brits bombed one in port, and the other one was scuttled in '45 in a desperate gambit to deny the Allies a port

I know, I only had ten options, so I went with the Dunkurque's instead, since the Scharnorsts were horribly undergunned.

I remeber hearing something like the Brits. sending their best battleship aginst the bismark but was sunk easly by it.
(theres something about the bismarch on tv tonight, il watch and see what happend to it)

You forgot the Scharnhorst class battleships.
They managed to give the Allies a really tough go of it,yet there were only two of them.


Yep, remember what is called "The Channel dash". Wich is the break out of Sharnhorst and her sistership Gneisenau (but hit a mine while doing it) and the "lucky ship" Prinz Eugen. Have to watch my WWII sites for the exact date, somewhere in 1942.
They where attacked by everything the Brits had and get through. The RAF had a important role to but since the Luftwaffe was not the Luftwaffe of late 44 or 45 it still was capable to give coverage.

I remeber hearing something like the Brits. sending their best battleship aginst the bismark but was sunk easly by it.

They sent the Hood and the Prince of Wales. The Latter was the newest ship in the Fleet, but it was rushed into service upon learning of the Bismarck, and should never have been sortied. The Hood was their most prized, but not best ship, it had horrible armour protection, and should have been sortied out with the King George V or Rodney instead of the Prince of Wales, it stood no chance against the Bismarck unless it got really really lucky

I apologize for my ignorance but if thats true than it must have demoralized the brits. greatly and boosted the germans.

Yep, remember what is called "The Channel dash". Wich is the break out of Sharnhorst and her sistership Gneisenau (but hit a mine while doing it) and the "lucky ship" Prinz Eugen. Have to watch my WWII sites for the exact date, somewhere in 1942.
They where attacked by everything the bits had and get through. The RAF had a important role to but since the Luftwaffe was not the Luftwaffe of late 44 or 45 it still was capable to give coverage.

The Channel Dash (Operation Cerberus), took place in the same month as the Fall of Singapore (Febraury 1942). The Scharnorst, Gneisanau, and Prinz Eugen (Along with motor boats and torpedo boats, making the fleet number 21), or the "Brest Squadron", made a dash from Brest in Brittany back to Germany, via the English Channel.

It was more an attribute to British carelessness, they didn't spot the fleet until it had been steaming for 12 hours, and Bomber Command did not attempt an attack until they were already through the Straits of Dover. And the ships they sortied to attack the fleet were not supporting and engaged in a melee manner, getting thrashed.

Bah, they never should have decommissioned the New Jersey.

I apologize for my ignorance but if thats true than it must have demoralized the brits. greatly and boosted the germans.

It certainly had that effect, but ended up being the Bismarck's downfall. After the Hood was sunk, suddenly every single available ship was sortied to sink the Bismarck, the RN made it clear that it was going to the bottom. It gave the German's a false sense of security about their ship, and they kept going into the Atlantic, believing themselves invincible, in fact they had trounced a ship that shouldn't have even been out of the shipyard yet (without thrashing it), and a ship that should have been renovated or decommisioned. They had not gone up against the best the RN had to offer.

The Vanguard might get my vote for aesthetically pleasing too though, it just looked like it was supposed to sail, and in my opinion was more beautiful than the Iowa's

The KVG might have been a lot better design had it not been made under Treaty limitations and with extremely limited funds, but it's gun layout was horrendous (the quad turrets).

Lol, there's one known as the Yamato-class . . . (Kira Yamato is the main character of Gundam SEED)

The problem being it takes a long time to deliver that power, a Battleship is many timesmor effective for supporting an amphibious operation than an Aircraft Carrier, which must maintain a far distance, and it's firepower equivalent of a day's worth of sorties can be delivered in a single hour by a battleship.
Even then, it has problems. For one, it does fire quite a few shells, and no one has any idea where it'll land. For another, it seems like a waste. I want quality in striking the enemy, not quantity. A few sixteen inch shells can clear a beach, but when loaded on to cruise missiles, they destroy only a few things. I'd destroy just entrenched positions. Our marines have no problem killing the rest.


In terms of range, but the 2,400 lb 16'' shell delivers a far more massive artillery strike than a single F-15.
Still, it's the quality of the blast, not its size. If the beach we needed to capture had a city on it, a guided missile launched from a ship or plane will kill less civilians, and target only what's needed. Again, battleships are only really needed now for their psychological impacts, just like MOABs.



2 of them are museums, another is listed as reserve, but is in no way ready without a major overhaul, and the third has been illegally towed by a congressman who wants to make it into a museum, the Navy is just not inclined to care.
Only one is in reserves? It doesn't surprise me, however, that an outdated ship is in reserves. The USS Constitution is still officially listed as a reserve ship, making it the oldest serving war ship. I wonder how it'd do if it were activated :D.
And let me guess: that other battleship is being towed by Trent Lott, right?

I remeber hearing something like the Brits. sending their best battleship aginst the bismark but was sunk easly by it.



They sent the Hood and the Prince of Wales. The Latter was the newest ship in the Fleet, but it was rushed into service upon learning of the Bismarck, and should never have been sortied. The Hood was their most prized, but not best ship, it had horrible armour protection, and should have been sortied out with the King George V or Rodney instead of the Prince of Wales, it stood no chance against the Bismarck unless it got really really lucky




HMS Hood, was not a battleship, she was a battlecruiser.

The Channel Dash (Operation Cerberus), took place in the same month as the Fall of Singapore (Febraury 1942). The Scharnorst, Gneisanau, and Prinz Eugen (Along with motor boats and torpedo boats, making the fleet number 21), or the "Brest Squadron", made a dash from Brest in Brittany back to Germany, via the English Channel.

It was more an attribute to British carelessness, they didn't spot the fleet until it had been steaming for 12 hours, and Bomber Command did not attempt an attack until they were already through the Straits of Dover. And the ships they sortied to attack the fleet were not supporting and engaged in a melee manner, getting thrashed.

Thank's :) You said in short what I ment. But for me, a WWII adict I wanted to post something more detailed about Cerberus. But my copy from a site that I join takes a 15 pages discussion.
Nice that you posted the date and posted about the imporatant MTB's.

HMS Hood, was not a battleship, she was a battlecruiser.

True, you think the RN would have learned the battlecruiser vs. battleshp mistake from Jutland.

True, you think the RN would have learned the battlecruiser vs. battleshp mistake from Jutland.

AND better range finders as well!!

Even then, it has problems. For one, it does fire quite a few shells, and no one has any idea where it'll land.

They can usually hit within a meter of their intended target, and with the unmanned drones, they can see their targets, they are very accurate.

For another, it seems like a waste. I want quality in striking the enemy, not quantity.

A 16''/50 shell delivers the same destructiveness as a single fighter-bomber from an aircraft carrier, and costs under a thousand dollars, compared to the ordinance an CV Airwing uses, that costs thousands of dollars.

A few sixteen inch shells can clear a beach, but when loaded on to cruise missiles, they destroy only a few things.

The problem being cruise missiles cost millions of dollars for just one, asstated above, the 16'' shell is far more economical.

I'd destroy just entrenched positions. Our marines have no problem killing the rest.

That is essentially what they do, and if it can cut down on losses, I say we need it.



Still, it's the quality of the blast, not its size. If the beach we needed to capture had a city on it, a guided missile launched from a ship or plane will kill less civilians,

As stated, 16'' shells fired by the US Iowa class, with it's advanced fire control system (which is based on 80's technology, imagine it with newer) can hit within about a meter of it's intended target.

and target only what's needed. Again, battleships are only really needed now for their psychological impacts, just like MOABs.

They are cheaper than cruise missiles, deliver more than an airwing, and are a psychological weapon. But, it has limited range, so I'm not saying Battleships should replace CV's or anything, the CV has a lot further range and flexibility, of course, armed with guided missiles significantly enhances the range of the battleship, but then it is just an expensive cruiser.




Only one is in reserves? It doesn't surprise me, however, that an outdated ship is in reserves. The USS Constitution is still officially listed as a reserve ship, making it the oldest serving war ship. I wonder how it'd do if it were activated :D.
And let me guess: that other battleship is being towed by Trent Lott, right?

I'm not entirely sure who towed it, but they towed it from Philadelphia to the West Coast. It's still listed as in Reserve, hence the reaosn why the towing is illegal.

AND better range finders as well!!

It's eerie how similar the destruction of the Hood and Indefagitable is. Personally, had the Prince of Wales been ready, or had the KGV sortied with the Hood, I think the Germans would have lost that battle. Not so sure about the Rodney, it certainly had it's problems, speed major among them.

Really there is no contest. The Iowa beats them all (including the Yamato) hands down. The only class that even comes close to beating the Iowa is the Yamato, but they never met in battle, the one time they could have on anything even approaching even terms, the US made a blunder and went after a Japanese decoy carrier force.

I know nothing about anything naval, so I just say Dreadnought, because it's such a badass name.

Just FYI, the Dreadnought was made in 1905, or somewhere around there, by the British. It completely revolutionized battleship design, making the mixed- gun ships of the previous era obsolete immediately. She was fast, and heavily armed, I remember hearing some quote somewhere about the older battleships being "too weak to fight, and too slow to run away."

All ships similar in design after her were classified as Dreadnaughts.

Really there is no contest. The Iowa beats them all (including the Yamato) hands down. The only class that even comes close to beating the Iowa is the Yamato, but they never met in battle, the one time they could have on anything even approaching even terms, the US made a blunder and went after a Japanese decoy carrier force.

I would gander to say, had the Vanguard been given 16'' guns, she probably could have sent an Iowa to the bottom, since the only decisive thing the Iowa had on the Vanguard was speed (by about a knot) and the 16'' guns. It didn't roll as much, and wasn't as "wet" as the Iowa, and it's armor was a bit more balanced than the Iowa's.

As for the Yamato, the Montana probably would have come off better in a fight with one, but was never built, an Iowa might get unlucky and take a hit from one of those massive 18.2'' shells, and that would have seriously put a hurt in her day. A battle between an Iowa and a Yamato is likely to come off without a decisive end, but odds are the Iowa would come off the better.

Just FYI, the Dreadnought was made in 1905, or somewhere around there, by the British. It completely revolutionized battleship design, making the mixed- gun ships of the previous era obsolete immediately. She was fast, and heavily armed, I remember hearing some quote somewhere about the older battleships being "too weak to fight, and too slow to run away."

All ships similar in design after her were classified as Dreadnaughts.

She certainly made everything before her obselete, no pre-Dreadnaught could take on the HMS Dreadnaught. The Dreadnaught era culminated in the Queen Elizabeth class of super-Dreadnaugts, after that, everything was called Battleships again, since the older obselete class had been scrapped.

You forgot the Scharnhorst class battleships.
They managed to give the Allies a really tough go of it,yet there were only two of them.
The Brits bombed one in port, and the other one was scuttled in '45 in a desperate gambit to deny the Allies a port

((Erm, I beg your pardon? Scharnhorst was sunk on Boxer’s Day 1943 after attempting to intercept a convoy off the North Cape. The cruisers Belfast and Jamaica hit her with 8” and 6” gunfire, and Sharnhorst tried to run south - right into the arms of the covering force, HMS Duke of York. Even though York had several of her guns out of action, she still severely damaged the German ship, and Sharnhorst was sent to the bottom by a spread of torpedoes.

Meanwhile, I also have to disagree with the creator of this thread - the British 15”/42 Mk. II was one of the greatest (and best) guns ever designed. It couldn’t match the American 16”/50 in terms of shell weight, but it was cheaper, more reliable, more accurate, and lighter. Maybe not better, all things considered, but a fine armament for any ship. Don’t forget that it was a shell from one of Warspite’s 15 inchers that scored a hit at 26,000+ yards* on Guilio Cesare; that hit was on the last occasion the Italian Navy ventured out of port until it came time to surrender.

Myself, I’d have to go with Vanguard. But she wasn’t completed until ‘46 (I believe...sometime after the war, anyway) so it wouldn’t really be fair to include her. My favorite battleship would have the previously mentioned Warspite - but I wouldn’t say she’s the ‘best’ either. Iowa was a damn fine ship - though really more closely related to a battlecruiser than a true battleship, given her sleek lines, mediocre armor, and speed - but I’d have a hard time picking her. Yamato was a big brute, but I’d still take the 16”/50 over one of her 18.1”/45s; I mean, the damn things weighed 2,500 tons a turret! Anticlimactically, I don’t know what the best battleship of World War II was, but it’s probably a rundown between the Iowas and the Yamatos. Had the Lions been built, and had the British 16”/45 Mk. II proved more effective than its poor cousins on Nelson and Rodney, I might’ve voted for them. But that’s all solidly in the realm of ‘what if?’

Oh, yes, and it’s DreadnOught. ‘Dreadnaught’ is a nonsense word that doesn’t mean anything.

* Some sources claim that Sharnhorst hit HMS Glorious with her third salvo, which was reputed to be fired at a distance of 26,300-26,600 yards. So the title of ‘longest gunfire hit on a moving target” is actually contested (no one knows exactly how far Warspite was from the Cesare either) and usually agreed to be a tie between the two.))

They can usually hit within a meter of their intended target, and with the unmanned drones, they can see their targets, they are very accurate.



A 16''/50 shell delivers the same destructiveness as a single fighter-bomber from an aircraft carrier, and costs under a thousand dollars, compared to the ordinance an CV Airwing uses, that costs thousands of dollars.



The problem being cruise missiles cost millions of dollars for just one, asstated above, the 16'' shell is far more economical.



That is essentially what they do, and if it can cut down on losses, I say we need it.





As stated, 16'' shells fired by the US Iowa class, with it's advanced fire control system (which is based on 80's technology, imagine it with newer) can hit within about a meter of it's intended target.



They are cheaper than cruise missiles, deliver more than an airwing, and are a psychological weapon. But, it has limited range, so I'm not saying Battleships should replace CV's or anything, the CV has a lot further range and flexibility, of course, armed with guided missiles significantly enhances the range of the battleship, but then it is just an expensive cruiser.






I'm not entirely sure who towed it, but they towed it from Philadelphia to the West Coast. It's still listed as in Reserve, hence the reaosn why the towing is illegal.
Okay, okay, you win. But I have to ask you one last question: why battleships? Destroyers, frigates, even aircrat carriers can have the same artillery qualities.

Meanwhile, I also have to disagree with the creator of this thread - the British 15”/42 Mk. II was one of the greatest (and best) guns ever designed. It couldn’t match the American 16”/50 in terms of shell weight, but it was cheaper, more reliable, more accurate, and lighter. Maybe not better, all things considered, but a fine armament for any ship. Don’t forget that it was a shell from one of Warspite’s 15 inchers that scored a hit at 26,000+ yards* on Guilio Cesare; that hit was on the last occasion the Italian Navy ventured out of port until it came time to surrender.

I wasn't knocking the 15'' guns the Vanguard carried, just that I think the 16'' would have been a better choice for the Vanguard to carry, and as for lighter, I believe Conway's claims the Vanguard could have been fitted with 16''/50 (I could be wrong, it might have been 16''/45, but I'm fairly certain it was 16''/50) without a difference in displacement.

Myself, I’d have to go with Vanguard. But she wasn’t completed until ‘46 (I believe...sometime after the war, anyway)

It was completed in 1946, yes.

so it wouldn’t really be fair to include her.

This isn't strictly WW2, and since I was listing the most advanced designs of all major powers built, the Vanguard is included. I probably should have made voting more than once allowed, and split it between Post-Treaty and Treaty Battleships, since comparing the KGV's to the Iowa's isn't really fair.

My favorite battleship would have the previously mentioned Warspite - but I wouldn’t say she’s the ‘best’ either.

Warspite is definitely my favorite battleship, she really should have been preserved, a veteran of every theater the RN fought in, in both World Wars.


Iowa was a damn fine ship - though really more closely related to a battlecruiser than a true battleship, given her sleek lines, mediocre armor, and speed - but I’d have a hard time picking her.

I would class her as a battleship, albeit a light one. Except for the Yavuz (which wasn't a WW2 battlecruiser anyway), no WW2 battlecruisers belt armor exceeded 10'' (The Dunkurque's armor I think, which was 9.75''), the Iowa's belt armor was 12.1'' thick.

Yamato was a big brute, but I’d still take the 16”/50 over one of her 18.1”/45s; I mean, the damn things weighed 2,500 tons a turret! Anticlimactically, I don’t know what the best battleship of World War II was, but it’s probably a rundown between the Iowas and the Yamatos. Had the Lions been built, and had the British 16”/45 Mk. II proved more effective than its poor cousins on Nelson and Rodney, I might’ve voted for them. But that’s all solidly in the realm of ‘what if?’

I breifly considered including the Lions, but then I would have to include the Montana, the German H class, the Sovietsky Soyuz class, and any other equivalents.

Oh, yes, and it’s DreadnOght. ‘Dreadnaught’ is a nonsense word that doesn’t mean anything.

Oops, thans for the correction.

Okay, okay, you win. But I have to ask you one last question: why battleships? Destroyers, frigates, even aircrat carriers can have the same artillery qualities.

Becuase they contain all the space necessary to hold these large guns, support, additional features (like VLS cells), and even perform as a command ship. A Destroyer does not have the ability to carry 16''/50 shells, neither does a cruiser. Furthermore, in order to field destroyers or cruisers capable of filling the Fire Support Role, we have to design and build new ships, whereas we only have to modernize already existing ships. The Battleships also have the necessary armor to come within range to effectively use it's main guns, none of our current Cruisers or Destroyers can do this, and our Aircraft Carriers are far too valuable to do so.

Becuase they contain all the space necessary to hold these large guns, support, additional features (like VLS cells), and even perform as a command ship. A Destroyer does not have the ability to carry 16''/50 shells, neither does a cruiser. Furthermore, in order to field destroyers or cruisers capable of filling the Fire Support Role, we have to design and build new ships, whereas we only have to modernize already existing ships. The Battleships also have the necessary armor to come within range to effectively use it's main guns, none of our current Cruisers or Destroyers can do this, and our Aircraft Carriers are far too valuable to do so.
Okay. You win.

Okay. You win.

So what is your opinion on the best battleship, I know earlier you stated Iowa, but you mentioned it's 1980 configuration. Using just the stats of all these ships in 1946 (or at the time of their sinking), and the last built of their class. Now that you have fought your way into my respect, I'm genuinely interested.

So what is your opinion on the best battleship, I know earlier you stated Iowa, but you mentioned it's 1980 configuration. Using just the stats of all these ships in 1946 (or at the time of their sinking), and the last built of their class. Now that you have fought your way into my respect, I'm genuinely interested.
I honestly don't know. But I'm actually thinking the Yamato. I know little about ships, but I know that the Yamato battle ships were extremely big, and survived a very long time. The IMS Yamato, for example, was only sunk in 1945, long after the rest of most of the Imperial Fleet. Besides, the Iowa battleships never engaged another battleship in WWII, and they probably didn't afterward. I can't think of one conflict after WWII where the enemy even had a navy.

On technical merit and overall fighting qualities, the Iowas win, with Yamato a close second.

On looks, Richelieu or Vittorio Veneto get high marks.

Best battleship built in compliance with the terms of the Washington Treaty, KGV (or the USN's South Dakotas, if you'll spot me the escelator clause!)

The Bismarck was only impressive for it's size, nothing else, it had a horrid AA armament and deployment of guns, it also had optics that were superior to their British equivalents however. It was far too heavily based on the Bayern class, than any WWII era ship. It's armour wasn't setup to deflect plunging fire, which was far more accurate by this time, and it lacked good protection against it.

The Yamato had better AA than the Bismarck, and some of the best optical sights in the world, but could not compare to the Fire Control abilities of the British and especially the Americans. It's armor was better suited to a WWII ship than the Bismarck, and it had a solid main armament, but lacked fire control radar, which might've given the Iowa a major edge in any engagement.

The Vanguard as I said, had the best AA of any ship of it's time, good speed, and decent armor, but it was undergunned with it's outdated 15'' guns, it should have been given 16''.


but given its time the bismark was very good and wasn't it only sunk because of a flook torpeodo hit i may be wrong and have it mixed with another ship idk

On technical merit and overall fighting qualities, the Iowas win, with Yamato a close second.

I think the Vanguard certainly rates on par with these two.

On looks, Richelieu or Vittorio Veneto get high marks.

I can profess to not know so much about the Vittorio Venetos, but the Richelieu is a seriously underrated ship, and had the Gascogne variant been built (with an aft turret, and I think a 3x3 instead of the horrid 2x4 fore, or it might of been one quad forward, one quad aft), I think it could give the Iowa a run for it's money.

Best battleship built in compliance with the terms of the Washington Treaty, KGV (or the USN's South Dakotas, if you'll spot me the escelator clause!)

The North Carolinas (well, they had their fair share of armour problems) and South Dakotas are both better than the KGV's in my eyes, but I am really prejudice against the KGVs becuase their quad turrets had horrible reliability, and they suffered from budget problems, and design faults.

I honestly don't know. But I'm actually thinking the Yamato. I know little about ships, but I know that the Yamato battle ships were extremely big, and survived a very long time. The IMS Yamato, for example, was only sunk in 1945, long after the rest of most of the Imperial Fleet. Besides, the Iowa battleships never engaged another battleship in WWII, and they probably didn't afterward. I can't think of one conflict after WWII where the enemy even had a navy.

The Yamatos were indeed huge, and did carry the biggest guns of the modern era (18.1"). The reason most battleship fans give the "best battleship" nod to Iowa in spite of that has to do with the (often overlooked) flaws in the Yamato design.

The 18.1" guns weren't the world beaters the IJN had hoped...the Iowas' 16" / Cal 50 Mod7 could almost match their maximum range (within 3,000 yards over a 27,000 yard range) and maximum armor penetration (within 3" at any reasonable battle range) while requiring a much smaller ship to carry them.

The Yamatos also had *very* short range (at least in my opinion), particularly for Pacific operations (7,200 miles@12 knots, vs Iowa's 15,000@15 knots, plus more if the TDS was loaded with fuel oil rather than seawater).

The reason the Yamato didn't sink until 1945 wasn't because the ship was 'super', it was because the USN never got a crack at her until then. The only time Yamato fired on enemy vessels was in her engagement with "Taffy-3", where she failed to sink an escort carrier 1/4 her tonnage. She was a tough ship, but she had flaws, and she was badly utilized.

but given its time the bismark was very good and wasn't it only sunk because of a flook torpeodo hit i may be wrong and have it mixed with another ship idk

The fluke torpedo did not sink it, it only damaged it's rudder, which pointed outa serious design flaw in the Bismarck. They could not manuever well without their rudder, and it had to turn back becuase of the scrap with the Hood and Prince Of Wales, damaged their oil reserves. When it finally met it's match in the Rodney and KGV, it didn't hold up that well, and not simply becuase of their lack of effective manuever. It was not armoured against the type of firepower it would come up against in the Second World War (tracing back to it's synthesis in the Bayern class), and was not made to withstand plunging fire, which with the increased ranges of WW2, was far more likely.

It would not have been effective as a raider after 1940 anyway, when Aircraft Carriers became more prominent (after Taranto and Pearl Harbor), it had horrible AA defence, and was wide open to torpedo and dive-bomb assaults.

The Yamatos were indeed huge, and did carry the biggest guns of the modern era (18.1"). The reason most battleship fans give the "best battleship" nod to Iowa in spite of that has to do with the (often overlooked) flaws in the Yamato design.

The 18.1" guns weren't the world beaters the IJN had hoped...the Iowas' 16" / Cal 50 Mod7 could almost match their maximum range (within 3,000 yards over a 27,000 yard range) and maximum armor penetration (within 3" at any reasonable battle range) while requiring a much smaller ship to carry them.

The Yamatos also had *very* short range (at least in my opinion), particularly for Pacific operations (7,200 miles@12 knots, vs Iowa's 15,000@15 knots, plus more if the TDS was loaded with fuel oil rather than seawater).

The reason the Yamato didn't sink until 1945 wasn't because the ship was 'super', it was because the USN never got a crack at her until then. The only time Yamato fired on enemy vessels was in her engagement with "Taffy-3", where she failed to sink an escort carrier 1/4 her tonnage. She was a tough ship, but she had flaws, and she was badly utilized.

Not too mention a serious fault in the ammunition the Yamato's used, which was replicated in the Kriegsmarine, in that their rounds would usually go straight through a target before exploding, becuase of their long delay-fuse.

I think the Vanguard certainly rates on par with these two.



I can profess to not know so much about the Vittorio Venetos, but the Richelieu is a seriously underrated ship, and had the Gascogne variant been built (with an aft turret, and I think a 3x3 instead of the horrid 2x4 fore, or it might of been one quad forward, one quad aft), I think it could give the Iowa a run for it's money.



The North Carolinas (well, they had their fair share of armour problems) and South Dakotas are both better than the KGV's in my eyes, but I am really prejudice against the KGVs becuase their quad turrets had horrible reliability, and they suffered from budget problems, and design faults.

I'll concede the point regarding Vanguard...the only reason I didn't list her was the relatively outdated main armament...but other than that, she was an outstanding ship. I'm given to understand that she was a better sea boat than the Iowas, as well.

Gascogne would've been another really good looking ship, and a solid fighter as well...IIRC, her gun layout would've been 2x4, one forward, one aft. It was her secondary armament that would've been in a 3x3 layout, with two superfiring the fore turret, and one above the aft.

KGV vs N.C. or SoDak isn't really fair, since the US ships took advantage of the "escalator clause" written into the Washington Treaty...that let them mount 16" guns vs the 14" specified in the treaty, and also (IIRC) gave them about 10,000 extra tons displacement to play with. Given what they had to work with, I think the Georges are really under-rated. They weren't the greatest ships, but they were solid designs, and the 14" guns (when they worked) weren't shabby...just ask DKM Bismarck.

Gascogne would've been another really good looking ship, and a solid fighter as well...IIRC, her gun layout would've been 2x4, one forward, one aft. It was her secondary armament that would've been in a 3x3 layout, with two superfiring the fore turret, and one above the aft.

Ah, thanks, I couldn't quite remember.

KGV vs N.C. or SoDak isn't really fair, since the US ships took advantage of the "escalator clause" written into the Washington Treaty...that let them mount 16" guns vs the 14" specified in the treaty, and also (IIRC) gave them about 10,000 extra tons displacement to play with. Given what they had to work with, I think the Georges are really under-rated. They weren't the greatest ships, but they were solid designs, and the 14" guns (when they worked) weren't shabby...just ask DKM Bismarck.

The KGV guns are seriously underrated, their AP shell actually had a more powerful penetration than the British 15'' shell, and the KGV broadside weighed more than the Richelieu's, which in turn weighed more than the Bismarck's, therefore, it was not truly undergunned. The escalator clause was only used on the North Carolinas to move to 16'' guns, their displacement was 37,000 tons, not too much more than the KGV's. The KGV's certainly are fine ships, but in my opinion thye should have been fitted with 16'' guns (or just stick with the 14'', they are fine weapons in their own right) in a 3x3 layout, since the quad turrets (especially the fore one) was consistently breaking down and non-functioning, of course, given what the British had to do with, they certainly made a fine design. But, comparing the two's final designs, the North Carolina trumps the KGV in my opinion, but I do think the KGV was far better than the Bismarck.

I miss the Deutschland class. The German pocket battleships.

I miss the Deutschland class. The German pocket battleships.

Personally, I think the Scharnorsts were both more aesthetically pleasing, and more powerful.

Personally, I think the Scharnorsts were both more aesthetically pleasing, and more powerful.
Sure. But I believe the Deutschland class ships were more succesfull. Considering they were build under Versailles restrictions and all.

Sure. But I believe the Deutschland class ships were more succesfull. Considering they were build under Versailles restrictions and all.

I suppose it can be viewed that way, they were about a tenth over the limit, an eigth for the later ones, in terms of displacement. They weren't particularly effective in what they were designed to do however, commerce raiding, setting one of these loose did not produce the effect of either the S&G (which would have provoked a hunt similar to the one for Bismarck after their initial spree) or the Tirpitz, whic caused the cancellation of PQ17.

A reply to the "sword and shield" from one of the first posts. I just got info that the hood wasnt really a battleship but a battle cruiser with 15 inch guns and dangerously thin armer,it sacraficed it for speed, so the hood really couldnt stand up to the bismarch. but still i think you dont give the bismarck enough credit, 40 percent of its weight was steal armor.

While this may be a little off topc, it is important to remember that there is more to battleships then armor and main guns. The Allied battleships had better fire-control radar than the Axis ships.

Granted I have to say the Iowa's are the best I voted for the Bismarck because I mean look at what it took to sink it and they wound up scuttling it. Man I love that sucker! Hell practically the whole British navy was fighting her...or him...sorry German-fans.

A reply to the "sword and shield" from one of the first posts. I just got info that the hood wasnt really a battleship but a battle cruiser


This is old news, man......

i was here at the beginning of the post and had to leave. when i came back and only read the last couple of posts so forgive me for wasting your time........man.

i was here at the beginning of the post and had to leave. when i came back and only read the last couple of posts so forgive me for wasting your time........man.


no time wasted.....

this is getting off subject.

Granted I have to say the Iowa's are the best I voted for the Bismarck because I mean look at what it took to sink it and they wound up scuttling it. Man I love that sucker! Hell practically the whole British navy was fighting her...or him...sorry German-fans.

She was not against the entire British Navy, the only two ships she really fought in her final battle were the King George V and the Rodney, and of all the shots fired at her, examination revealed only 3 were substantial hits, the rest either missed, went below the waterline, or were inconsequential.

As for her armor, she had a lot of it, but it was all concentrated in areas a WWI battleship would have to face, not the plunging fire that was common in BB vs BB battles of the Second World War. Had she been up against a battleship like the Iowa or Vanguard, or even the KGV with the advanced radar Fire Control of the later war, she would have went down within the first few salvos.

A reply to the "sword and shield" from one of the first posts. I just got info that the hood wasnt really a battleship but a battle cruiser with 15 inch guns and dangerously thin armer,it sacraficed it for speed, so the hood really couldnt stand up to the bismarch. but still i think you dont give the bismarck enough credit, 40 percent of its weight was steal armor.

I feel somewhat propelled to comment, that I never said the Hood was a battleship. In fact, I was degrading the Hood's armor earlier, and how suicidal the Hood, Prince of Wales vs. Bismarck, Prinz Eugen battle was for Adm. Holland, the Hood should have been sent out with the KGV, like the Renown, or simply shadowed and not engaged without either the KGV or Rodney, or almost any other battleship other than the Prince of Wales. And it's armor was pretty bad even for a battlecruiser, the Renown was far better protected.

A reply to the "sword and shield" from one of the first posts. I just got info that the hood wasnt really a battleship but a battle cruiser with 15 inch guns and dangerously thin armer,it sacraficed it for speed, so the hood really couldnt stand up to the bismarch. but still i think you dont give the bismarck enough credit, 40 percent of its weight was steal armor.

As an aside...please capitalize ship names (particularly warship names) when using them in written communication. It's a sign of respect for the men who served on them, as well as a tradition that dates back several hundred years.

As for "giving the Bismarck enough credit", your post brings up one of his (yes, Bismarck and Tirpitz are "he / him", rather than the usual naval "she / her") problems. It's true that he carried 40% of his tonnage as armor, but that's not always a good thing.

http://www.kbismarck.com/proteccioni.html

Shows how Bismarck's armor was placed on the ship. Notice that there's a strip of 60-80mm armor that runs the full length of the waterline, and another strip of 80mm armor above the main belt? That's not only wasted weight, it's actually *dangerous* for the ship, since 60-80mm armor won't stop any AP shell bigger than about 2"...but it *will* initiate the fuse on the shell. End result: Instead of passing through undetonated, leaving a messy but small hole that can be patched, the shell will detonate inside the hull, resulting in much greater damage.

Extending the main belt armor past the barbettes of turrets Anton and Dora was more wasted weight. Keeping the main belt as short as possible would save weight that could better be used somewhere else. (The desire to keep the belt short explains the all-forward armament layout on HMS Nelson). Bismarck also has two relatively thick armored decks. He'd be better off to have one very thick one, with a relatively thin "splinter deck" (around 20mm) below that to intercept spall from impacts on the upper deck.

In short, Bismarck carried a lot of armor, but didn't use it in the most efficient manner. If I were feeling really irreverent, I'd point out that the massively armored Bismarck was really doomed, not by the torpedo in her rudders, but by a 14" round fired from Prince of Wales. The round hit that armored strip near the waterline, and broke open one of his fuel bunkers. That lack of fuel (and the heavy flooding in the bow) was what forced Leutjens to head back to France. Take a look at the bottom photo on this page to see what I mean:

http://www.kbismarck.com/photos4.html


There's also a lot of wasted weight and space devoted to seperate secondary armament (12 x 150mm) and heavy AA batteries (16 x 105mm), along with two sets of directors and fire-control gear. There's a reason the USN, RN, and IJN all went with dual-purpose guns (surface and heavy AA) as secondary batteries on their battleships.

On the subject of armament, Bismarck's 15" guns were excellent guns, but they were also designed to fire very fast, flat trajectories. That's a good thing if you're in a short / medium range shoot out (like the fight with Hood and Prince of Wales), but it drastically reduces your ability to engage targets at long range. That's a really bad thing when two of your most likely opposition forces (USN and RN) have been concentrating on long-range gunnery.

Bismarck was a tough ship, and a very handsome one...but he could have been a *much* better one.

To close on a note related to the original topic, the Bismarck page has some really nice side-view sketches of several ships in this poll. Take a look.

http://www.kbismarck.com/buqueepoi.html

What was the greatest mussle-loading rifle ever built? That is what the battleship is you know? A military artifact,like the mussle-loading rifle.

What was the greatest mussle-loading rifle ever built? That is what the battleship is you know? A military artifact,like the mussle-loading rifle.

You mean, muzzle loading rifle, in which case, what do you mean that is a battleship? Battleships that used muzzle loading artillery, or breech loading rifle artillery are usually called Ships-of-the-Line and Monitors.

Nope, Bismarck was a she too. As are ships like Nimitz and Dwight D Eisenhower.

Nope, Bismarck was a she too. As are ships like Nimitz and Dwight D Eisenhower.

The Bismarck's Commander (Or it may have been Admiral Lutjens or Donitz, not sure) made it clear that the Bismarck was to be referred to by the pronoun, He, not She, though I'm fairly sure the rest of the world still says she when referring to her.

As an aside...please capitalize ship names (particularly warship names) when using them in written communication. It's a sign of respect for the men who served on them, as well as a tradition that dates back several hundred years.

As for "giving the Bismarck enough credit", your post brings up one of his (yes, Bismarck and Tirpitz are "he / him", rather than the usual naval "she / her") problems. It's true that he carried 40% of his tonnage as armor, but that's not always a good thing.




I didnt mean to disrespect the people who served on the ships and apoligize if i have offended anyone.

Aside from the best "battledship" i think the Bismarch is the most well known by the gerearal public.

Aside from the best "battledship" i think the Bismarch is the most well known by the gerearal public.

Which is precisely the reason so many people think she was so great, she has all this hype around her of being some kind of super battleship, when in reality, she was at best, a subpar WW2 battleship.

Which is precisely the reason so many people think she was so great, she has all this hype around her of being some kind of super battleship, when in reality, she was at best, a subpar WW2 battleship.

Or to be more correct, a very good WW1 battleship.

Or to be more correct, a very good WW1 battleship.

Indeed, now if only those pesky British and Americans had stuck with their Iron Duke and Arkansas class Battleships.

Indeed, now if only those pesky British and Americans had stuck with their Iron Duke and Arkansas class Battleships.

just wondering what nationality are you.

just wondering what nationality are you.

American, Massachusetts to be precise

I would gander to say, had the Vanguard been given 16'' guns, she probably could have sent an Iowa to the bottom, since the only decisive thing the Iowa had on the Vanguard was speed (by about a knot) and the 16'' guns. It didn't roll as much, and wasn't as "wet" as the Iowa, and it's armor was a bit more balanced than the Iowa's.

As for the Yamato, the Montana probably would have come off better in a fight with one, but was never built, an Iowa might get unlucky and take a hit from one of those massive 18.2'' shells, and that would have seriously put a hurt in her day. A battle between an Iowa and a Yamato is likely to come off without a decisive end, but odds are the Iowa would come off the better.
I am not arguing with the fact that those 18 (!) inch guns can really ruin your whole day, but the Yamato apparently was either saddled with a bad gun control system, or had gun problems as she rarely if ever hit anything with them. True the Vanguard was in many ways a better ship then the Iowa, but she wasnt built till after the war. Heck...back in 44 a Japanese battleship force, including the Yamato was very close to single-handedly stopping the US invasion of the Philiphines. If the Yamato's guns had been as well used as the german ones she alone could have sunk the entire (6 escort carriers, 2 fleet and 3 escort destroyers) defense force!

I am not arguing with the fact that those 18 (!) inch guns can really ruin your whole day, but the Yamato apparently was either
saddled with a bad gun control system

It had the best optical fire control system in the world, so at close range, in good weather, and during the day, this is better than the American or British optics (in other words, neglecting Radar Fire Control).

or had gun problems as she rarely if ever hit anything with them.

This really has more to do with their ammunition problems, their shells consistently went through a target without exploding becuase of their long-delayed fuse, so they wouldn't cause that much damage to a ship. German 15'' shells suffered the same problem.

True the Vanguard was in many ways a better ship then the Iowa, but she wasnt built till after the war.

She was started earlier, and this is also not strictly limited to WW2 ships, that just happens to be when the epitome of battleship design for each respective major nation was reached, so the Vanguard is fair game.

Heck...back in 44 a Japanese battleship force, including the Yamato was very close to single-handedly stopping the US invasion of the Philiphines. If the Yamato's guns had been as well used as the german ones she alone could have sunk the entire (6 escort carriers, 2 fleet and 3 escort destroyers) defense force!

If they could get within range of that force, both the Yamato and Musashi were sunk from the air, so approaching an American Carrier Task Force is not a good idea, not too mention the Carriers are faster.

And I huffed and I puffed and wondered why the French Navy is getting the shaft in the poll?

Nope, Bismarck was a she too. As are ships like Nimitz and Dwight D Eisenhower.

Indeed but Bismarck was a he. Germans called their ships in the masculine during the Nazi-era (don't know if they still do or did previously). Deutchland being the fatherland. She is everyone else. America, Britain, Russia, France, and a few others I know of refer in the feminine. I don't know but referring to a ship as a "she" just sounds better.

She was not against the entire British Navy, the only two ships she really fought in her final battle were the King George V and the Rodney, and of all the shots fired at her, examination revealed only 3 were substantial hits, the rest either missed, went below the waterline, or were inconsequential.

As for her armor, she had a lot of it, but it was all concentrated in areas a WWI battleship would have to face, not the plunging fire that was common in BB vs BB battles of the Second World War. Had she been up against a battleship like the Iowa or Vanguard, or even the KGV with the advanced radar Fire Control of the later war, she would have went down within the first few salvos.

Watching "Sink the Bismarck," the Brits sortied a lot of ships to fight him. And yes he really only went up against a few but there were a lot out there looking for him.

Watching "Sink the Bismarck," the Brits sortied a lot of ships to fight him. And yes he really only went up against a few but there were a lot out there looking for him.

They did sortie a lot of ships, but only truly fought two, the cruisers and destroyers that accompanied the KGV and Rodney did not engage the Bismarck until later in the battle, and mostly then for torpedo salvos. Originally sortied to engage the Bismarck in terms of capitol ships were the HMS Hood and HMS Prince of Wales to patrol the Faroe Islands/Iceland route, the HMS KGV, HMS Victorious, and HMS Rodney, to patrol just off the Orkney's, in the Orkneys/Faroe Islands route, and the HMS Suffolk and HMS Norfolk to patrol the Denmark Straits (The route the Bismarck took).

After the Hood was sunk, further ships from the Home Fleet were sortied, and Force H from Gibraltar was sortied, which contained the HMS Renown and the HMS Ark Royal, the only ship of Force H to play a major role (Except for the HMS Sheffield, which was almost torpedoed by Ark Royal Swordfish mistaking it for the Bismarck).

Indeed but Bismarck was a he. Germans called their ships in the masculine during the Nazi-era (don't know if they still do or did previously). Deutchland being the fatherland. She is everyone else. America, Britain, Russia, France, and a few others I know of refer in the feminine. I don't know but referring to a ship as a "she" just sounds better.

Only the Bismarck was a he, the rest were referred to, like the other world's naval ships, as she. The only ship that this may not apply to might be the DKM Tirpitz, but afaik, it was a she as well.

And I huffed and I puffed and wondered why the French Navy is getting the shaft in the poll?
Simple. Neither they, nor the Italians, can make a good battleship. (who voted for the Vittorio Veneto? She's a pretty ship, but that is all she is..)

Simple. Neither they, nor the Italians, can make a good battleship. (who voted for the Vittorio Veneto? She's a pretty ship, but that is all she is..)

The Richelieu was quite a good battleship, strong in armor, armament, technology, and speed. Almost as balanced as the Vanguard, it's only serious drawback was the 2x4 layout of it's main guns, and it was a fuel hog. Had the Gascogne variant been built this would have done away with the lack of a rear firing arc, the Richelieu is many times better than the Bismarck or Nagato.