NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm 'visiting' our fiftieth state this week. We had a few hours off from work and I took a tour of the USS Missouri, BB-63. It's just amazing to set foot on such an historic ship. Much like touring the USS Constitution, it's hard to assimilate all the history into something coherent.

So here it goes anyway. Which battleship do y'all consider to be the best of all time?

Best can be whatever you want it to be, but please explain. I don't want to just see some Soviet POS mentioned and left at that...

Making a trip to the 'bookends' I see. It`s amazing that the place where WWII started for the US also houses where WWII ended for us as well.

My vote goes for the IOWA Class battleship.
Fifty years of service and still mission capable today.

This one

http://www.shakingthrough.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/battleship_game.jpg

the Bismark
she had the best of everything and could still out run the allies. if a WWI era torpedo plane didn't get a lucky hit and damage her rudder she would have got away.

The first of the great battleships: the HMS Dreadnaught!

Or, my battleship vs. your transport in Axis & Allies

Iowa Class, without a question.

While the Japanese Yamato Class were large, carried huge guns, and were quite daunting, the technological advances, especially in fire control, communications, ammunition and radio detection are absolutely amazing. Further, the Yamato's on-sea performance capabilities were significantly lacking, in comparison to the Iowa's, which had a 9 knot advantage over the Yamatos.

More than that, the Iowa's had carrier support the entire war, whilst the Yamato found itself in dire straights, as far as that is concerned.

HMS Hood

For twenty years, the biggest warship afloat and a sign of Britain's Naval strength and power for the rest of the world to see. Not only that but one of the most elegant warships and fast as well. Didn't deserve to go the way she did

HMS Victory because it was such a beautiful old wooden battleship, and had a very illustrious career.

Piotr Velikiy.
Construction finished 1869, scrapped 1959.
True, the majority of her service was variously as a depot ship or training vessel, but still, thats a pretty damn impressiv service record. Most battleships have/had a service life of, what, twenty-thirty years?
I tell ya, the Russians build 'em to last :P

Got to be HMS Victory. So much history to that ship and undoubtedly the greatest sign of Englands proud Naval history (how could succesive governments since WW2 have ruined the RN :()

The HMS Dreadnought. HUZZAH!

I have to say it would be the USS Massachussetts, berthed at Battleship Cove, I say this because this is the only battleship I have been on...

I'm with Alversia on this one. HMS Hood.

HMS Victory isn't a battleship - it's a first rate ship of the line.

I would have to go with the Iowa class for it's service record and it's sheer power. Myrmidonisia when you were down in the ship couldn't you feel the history? I know I could when I walked the ship. Also the sub they have at the center there was a cool little walkthrough.

HMS Hood

For twenty years, the biggest warship afloat and a sign of Britain's Naval strength and power for the rest of the world to see. Not only that but one of the most elegant warships and fast as well. Didn't deserve to go the way she did

Actually, it deserved the death it got, if only to drive home the failure of the Battecruiser concept. A battleship is only as good as its armor, not its guns. You can put a monster gun on a ship with waffer thin armor, and make it go 60 knots, but the second it goes against a ship with heavier guns, it's screwed. The world's battecruisers should have been scapped after Jutland.

I label this a battleship, and I label it as the best battleship.

http://www.eco-tours.cg.yu/high/wood_raft.jpg

Well, erm, it currently is under, uh, maintenance, so it's not looking its best at the moment...

I label this a battleship, and I label it as the best battleship.

*snip*

Well, erm, it currently is under, uh, maintenance, so it's not looking its best at the moment...

You sir, win the thread.

I label this a battleship, and I label it as the best battleship.

*snip*

Well, erm, it currently is under, uh, maintenance, so it's not looking its best at the moment...

Pfft, your battleship has long construction times, poor response and high costs.

This (http://blog.makezine.com/216150564_2987cd4a48.jpg), on the other hand, is the best one. Smooth lines and good cost.

:p

I'm 'visiting' our fiftieth state this week. We had a few hours off from work and I took a tour of the USS Missouri, BB-63. It's just amazing to set foot on such an historic ship. Much like touring the USS Constitution, it's hard to assimilate all the history into something coherent.

So here it goes anyway. Which battleship do y'all consider to be the best of all time?

Best can be whatever you want it to be, but please explain. I don't want to just see some Soviet POS mentioned and left at that...

Everyone toots about HMS Dreadnought, and indeed she was a fine ship. There were many other very good ships at that time as well though.

Dreadnought is well known for her steam turbines and all-big-gun armament. (though the latter was being worked on by the Americans and the Japanese)

USS South Carolina was a Dreadnought contemporary that incorporated superfiring turrets, the first such ship to combine All-Big-Guns and Superfiring. She used shitty tripple expansion steam engines though, which was unfortunate and gave Dreadnought a 3 knot advantage.

Satsuma was actually the first All-Big-Gun ship to be launched, a short time before Dreadnought, but she was crappy and no one really cared about Japan then.

The Battleships that a lot of people don't give much credit to (but should) are the Standard Classes of the US Navy.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-071.htm
The essay is somewhat biased (what's not nowadays?) but factually correct.

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/9902/swexecutor01qx4.jpg

It’s pretty much self-explanatory.

do Destroyers count? if they do my favorite is probably the Spruance Class Destroyer (USS Paul F. Foster, DD-964, namely)

if not, the Iowa Class Battleship of WWII

http://navysite.de/dd/dd964_5.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/29/49574663_79aaa64698.jpg

the Spruance Class was Reliable, Fast, & had a good 24-year Service Length, from 1978 to 2002

& pretty much every1 loves the Iowa Class battleships. my reason is because it was INCREDIBLY reliable, made 1st place in the Military Channel's list of top 10 Warships of all time, & was pulled out of Mothball several times, even being used in the 2003 invasion of Iraq as missile & gun platforms, until finally being decommisioned in 2006. Considering it's history, I think it'l be pulled out of mothball in the next Conflict

do Destroyers count? if they do my favorite is probably the Spruance Class Destroyer (USS Paul F. Foster, DD-964, namely)

if not, the Iowa Class Battleship of WWII

http://navysite.de/dd/dd964_5.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/29/49574663_79aaa64698.jpg

the Spruance Class was Reliable, Fast, & had a good 24-year Service Length, from 1978 to 2002

& pretty much every1 loves the Iowa Class battleships. my reason is because it was INCREDIBLY reliable, made 1st place in the Military Channel's list of top 10 Warships of all time, & was pulled out of Mothball several times, even being used in the 2003 invasion of Iraq as missile & gun platforms, until finally being decommisioned in 2006. Considering it's history, I think it'l be pulled out of mothball in the next Conflict


A few minor corrections here. The last Iowa class to see action was in the Gulf War not the Iraq 2003 war. Also it was decomissioned in 1992 for the last time. Finally stricken from the records in 2006. Other than that it was an amazing class of ship.

HMS Warspite. From Jutland to Normandy with 25 honors.

Actually, it deserved the death it got, if only to drive home the failure of the Battecruiser concept. A battleship is only as good as its armor, not its guns. You can put a monster gun on a ship with waffer thin armor, and make it go 60 knots, but the second it goes against a ship with heavier guns, it's screwed. The world's battecruisers should have been scapped after Jutland.

The 1,300 men who went down with her deserved that death as well did they?

I know the Battlecruiser was not a good idea, speed never compensates for armour but even so, they weren't designed to go agaist battleships, they were designed to act as screening forces for the main Battleship as well as patrol Britain's vast empire, hence the name Battle-Cruisers

Battleships suck. Aircraft Carriers are better.

True, I like the old Yorktown Class. From Midway. I think

The 1,300 men who went down with her deserved that death as well did they?

I know the Battlecruiser was not a good idea, speed never compensates for armour but even so, they weren't designed to go agaist battleships, they were designed to act as screening forces for the main Battleship as well as patrol Britain's vast empire, hence the name Battle-Cruisers

An unfortunate loss, yes, but also one of the many nails in the coffin of the battle-cruiser's coffin. The fact that it went down with all but 3 men, proves the fact that the conept is a failure. Any penetrating shot would have done it.

Actually, it deserved the death it got, if only to drive home the failure of the Battecruiser concept. A battleship is only as good as its armor, not its guns. You can put a monster gun on a ship with waffer thin armor, and make it go 60 knots, but the second it goes against a ship with heavier guns, it's screwed. The world's battecruisers should have been scapped after Jutland.

ROFL. You just showed how particularly ignorant you are. Firstly, I'm not aware that inanimate objects are particularly deserving of anything, considering they lack like, you know, emotion.

Secondly, HMS Hood was a well armed battlecruiser - equal in both belt and deck protection to the Queen Elizabeth Class, the staple of the Royal Navy battle fleet. The death of the Hood was due to a very lucky shot and damned flawed doctrine. The 4" gun lockers were left open and a fire from an 8" shell from Prinz Eugen set them alight.

There are a number of theories as to where the Bismarck's shell hit but all of them rely on the flawed construction of Hood's armour scheme - not due to her role as a battlecruiser, but due to her design. Had she a more comprehensive and designed with hindsight armour scheme she would have survived to take on the Bismarck, though it really is questionable how she would have done, given Bismarck's armour design and the fact Hood was old, weary, and not particularly fit for combat.

What evidence do you have to say that "any penetrating shot" would have destroyed the Hood?

By the way it was the British Battlecruiser Squadron of Hood, Renown and Repulse that kept Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in check. They were the only vessels in the British Navy that could catch the speedy Scharn and Gnei, and their firepower was easily capable of breaking through the German ship's protection. The British Battlecruiser Squadron truly was feared by the Kriegsmarine throughout the war.

An unfortunate loss, yes, but also one of the many nails in the coffin of the battle-cruiser's coffin. The fact that it went down with all but 3 men, proves the fact that the conept is a failure. Any penetrating shot would have done it.

Also, you didn't particularly answer the question. It's rather insulting to the men who gave their lives to say that their ship 'deserved' to be destroyed then say that their deaths proved a concept you evidently have very little grasp of a failure, despite the fact it was used to great effect by the Germans and the Japanese.

Well, Jutland and the Denmark Strait were proof that it cannot face battleships in battle but then the Battle of the Falkland Islands proved that they were effective at what they were designed to do, i.e race to the far corners of the earth and keep the British Empire safe from attackers.

Actually it was an unlucky shot. If the shell had hit her two seconds later, then she would have been saved. She was due to undergo renevation in 1939 but the war interrupted that.

Well, Jutland and the Denmark Strait were proof that it cannot face battleships in battle but then the Battle of the Falkland Islands proved that they were effective at what they were designed to do, i.e race to the far corners of the earth and keep the British Empire safe from attackers.

Actually it was an unlucky shot. If the shell had hit her two seconds later, then she would have been saved. She was due to undergo renevation in 1939 but the war interrupted that.

Er, the role of the battlecruiser is not to face the battleship in battle. The role of the battlecruiser is to engage cruisers in battle, which it does perfectly well.

Unlucky for the Hood, lucky for the Germans. Either is acceptable.

By the way, modern Battleship vs Modern Battlecruiser... Iowa Class vs Kirov Class. Kirov wins, easily.

Er, the role of the battlecruiser is not to face the battleship in battle. The role of the battlecruiser is to engage cruisers in battle, which it does perfectly well.

Unlucky for the Hood, lucky for the Germans. Either is acceptable.

By the way, modern Battleship vs Modern Battlecruiser... Iowa Class vs Kirov Class. Kirov wins, easily.

See below

The 1,300 men who went down with her deserved that death as well did they?

I know the Battlecruiser was not a good idea, speed never compensates for armour but even so, they weren't designed to go agaist battleships, they were designed to act as screening forces for the main Battleship Force as well as patrol Britain's vast empire, hence the name Battle-Cruisers

I apologise.

Apology accepted. I do know my stuff

Kirov isn't a Battlecruiser! Good grief! Kirov falls into the same category as USS Alaska. An up-weaponed and enlarged cruiser doesn't necessarily make it a battlecruiser. Yes, it has the capabilities to do so, but that's not what it's designed to do.

It's like calling an F-14 Tomcat an air superiority fighter. Yes, it can do that. But remember, the Tomcat was designed to carry long range AAMs to shoot down Soviet bombers. It's an interceptor.

So stop calling Kirov a battlecruiser! It's merely a guided missile cruiser on steroids!

My favourite battleship, to get back on topic, would be the Queen Elizabeth class. Like HMS Warspite, for example.

Piotr Velikiy.
Construction finished 1869, scrapped 1959.
True, the majority of her service was variously as a depot ship or training vessel, but still, thats a pretty damn impressiv service record. Most battleships have/had a service life of, what, twenty-thirty years?
I tell ya, the Russians build 'em to last :P


The USS Constitution scoffs as your service record.

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/9902/swexecutor01qx4.jpg

It’s pretty much self-explanatory.

sorry, but that's not a battleship, it's a Destroyer.

Aside from the Iowas. (PS: I support the marines in handing them over to them, those super destroyers that the contractors brag about are nothing but pork on paper)

I'll have to go with the Nevada.

It had a good but uneventful career in WWI. Toured the world between the wars.

And was the only battleship able to move at Pearl Harbor, where, without aid of Tugboats and under enemy attack manged to try and make a break for it.

Took 1 torpedo and 3 to 4 bombs before being forced to run aground to prevent them the Japaneese from sinking it in the harbor exit. The entire front of the ship was wrecked from 250 lb bombs.
Run aground (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/USS_Nevada_-Waipio_Point-_)

It was then refloated and went on to fight at, Normandy, the invasion of Southern France, Iwo Jima, and even Japan itself.

Then after all of that, they made it a target ship for the Bikini Atoll tests... Surived both Able and Baker.
And was taken back to hawaii and finally sunk.

Talk about a ship that refused to die.

sorry, but that's not a battleship, it's a Destroyer.
A Super Star Torpedo Motor Boat Destroyer

The USS Yorktown... while technically not a battleship it was a warship... the crew of the Grey Ghost was one of the deciding factors in the pacific theater in WWII.

Old ironsides. Or the USS Constitution for those of you not familar with nicknames of old battleships.

sorry, but that's not a battleship, it's a Destroyer.

Urmm, the destroyer only refers to the terms star and super..

She is a battleship and she is very powerful for that story.. hell, one type could blow a planet appart (iirc from the post RToJ books)

Old ironsides. Or the USS Constitution for those of you not familar with nicknames of old battleships.

The USS Constitution is a frigate.

I would have to go with the Iowa class for it's service record and it's sheer power. Myrmidonisia when you were down in the ship couldn't you feel the history? I know I could when I walked the ship. Also the sub they have at the center there was a cool little walkthrough.
It's an odd feeling for me to walk through any empty ship. I've spent so much time on them -- they're crowded and noisy. The Mo wasn't. Things just weren't the way they should be. Your right about feeling the history; it's almost like visiting ghosts.

It's impossible to walk on the decks without thinking of all those that lived and fought on that ship.

sorry, but that's not a battleship, it's a Destroyer.
Hey, which island do you live on?

The USS Constitution is a frigate.

Sheesh, you kids with all of your fancy ship classes and stuff...back in MY day we just had biremes and triremes, and we learned to stick with them!

Sheesh, you kids with all of your fancy ship classes and stuff...back in MY day we just had biremes and triremes, and we learned to stick with them!

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/N1ImSorry.gif


To answer the OP, the Queen Elizabeth class.

Sheesh, you kids with all of your fancy ship classes and stuff...back in MY day we just had biremes and triremes, and we learned to stick with them!
Don't forget Pyr Thalassion!

I'm going to have to vote for the Iowa class battleship.

Here's a pic of it firing its guns. You can see the waves the ship is making as it's being pushed sideways from the recoil. Those are some powerful guns, to be able to push a ship that size sideways.

http://www.gnt.net/~wright/1bb61.jpg

Wouldnt want to be recieving that broadside!

sorry, but that’s not a battleship, it’s a Destroyer.
A destroyer is only her class, indeed she’s a dreadnought. But she’s still a battleship.

I'm going to have to vote for the Iowa class battleship.

Here's a pic of it firing its guns. You can see the waves the ship is making as it's being pushed sideways from the recoil. Those are some powerful guns, to be able to push a ship that size sideways.

http://www.gnt.net/~wright/1bb61.jpg
That's not the ship being pushed sideways, that's the force of the gun blast on the surface of the water. The momentum of the projectiles against the mass of the ship and the resistance of water means that any movement sideways will be minimal.

I've seen the math done, it's just not enough force to move the ship like that.

I'm going to have to vote for the Iowa class battleship.

Here's a pic of it firing its guns. You can see the waves the ship is making as it's being pushed sideways from the recoil. Those are some powerful guns, to be able to push a ship that size sideways.

From what I recall, it's not being pushed sideways. It's some kind of overpressure difference if I remember correctly, due to the muzzle flare/shockwave that's causing the waves like that.

Think about it this way. The Iowa has a standard displacement of 45,000 tons, or 45,000,000 kg. Each Mark 7 gun weighs 121,519kg, a fraction of the battleships weight. There are 9 guns, in 3 turrets. That comes to 364,557 kg per battery. Still a fraction of the battleship's weight. To put enough force to shift all 45,000,000 kg of the battleship that much in a single burst would probably generate enough force to tear the batteries right out of their mountings.

ROFL. You just showed how particularly ignorant you are. Firstly, I'm not aware that inanimate objects are particularly deserving of anything, considering they lack like, you know, emotion.

Secondly, HMS Hood was a well armed battlecruiser - equal in both belt and deck protection to the Queen Elizabeth Class, the staple of the Royal Navy battle fleet. The death of the Hood was due to a very lucky shot and damned flawed doctrine. The 4" gun lockers were left open and a fire from an 8" shell from Prinz Eugen set them alight.

There are a number of theories as to where the Bismarck's shell hit but all of them rely on the flawed construction of Hood's armour scheme - not due to her role as a battlecruiser, but due to her design. Had she a more comprehensive and designed with hindsight armour scheme she would have survived to take on the Bismarck, though it really is questionable how she would have done, given Bismarck's armour design and the fact Hood was old, weary, and not particularly fit for combat.

What evidence do you have to say that "any penetrating shot" would have destroyed the Hood?

By the way it was the British Battlecruiser Squadron of Hood, Renown and Repulse that kept Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in check. They were the only vessels in the British Navy that could catch the speedy Scharn and Gnei, and their firepower was easily capable of breaking through the German ship's protection. The British Battlecruiser Squadron truly was feared by the Kriegsmarine throughout the war.



Also, you didn't particularly answer the question. It's rather insulting to the men who gave their lives to say that their ship 'deserved' to be destroyed then say that their deaths proved a concept you evidently have very little grasp of a failure, despite the fact it was used to great effect by the Germans and the Japanese. well if battlecruisers are acceptable here i'd given the nod to the german battlecruisers which tended to do quite well in battle against either british battlecruisers or to a lesser extent british battleships in both world wars... the Prince Eugen was a hell of a fighting ship and as you point out it was probably the ship that destroyed the Hood, the British battlecruisers did seem to have serious firecontrol issues throughout their history, but that may have been more a flaw in ammo handling policy enforcement than in ship design.

the Seydlitz is probably my favorite warship ever the shell magnet was as close to unsinkable as any warship could be and all the german battlecruisers of the Battle of Jutland performed well... the death charge of the German battlecruisers has to be one of the moments of true heroism in the war... the Seydlitz may well have had no main guns operationial when it took part but it still made it back to harbor.

Seydlitz after Jutland

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/SMS_Seydlitz_damage.jpg

From what I recall, it's not being pushed sideways. It's some kind of overpressure difference if I remember correctly, due to the muzzle flare/shockwave that's causing the waves like that.

Think about it this way. The Iowa has a standard displacement of 45,000 tons, or 45,000,000 kg. Each Mark 7 gun weighs 121,519kg, a fraction of the battleships weight. There are 9 guns, in 3 turrets. That comes to 364,557 kg per battery. Still a fraction of the battleship's weight. To put enough force to shift all 45,000,000 kg of the battleship that much in a single burst would probably generate enough force to tear the batteries right out of their mountings.

Well, quite - Navweaps claims that the Iowa itself recoils six inches when she fires a full broadside, which battleships rarely do. I can't find the damn article now, but if I can I'll link it.

CannibalChrist: Prinz Eugen was a Commerce Raiding Cruiser, not a Battlecruiser (yes there's a difference) - I mean, she had 8" guns compared to contemporary battlecruisers with 11", 12", 14", and 15" rifles. Though I do have to give the German's credit for their battlecruisers, they were amazing vessels.

That's not the ship being pushed sideways, that's the force of the gun blast on the surface of the water. The momentum of the projectiles against the mass of the ship and the resistance of water means that any movement sideways will be minimal.

I've seen the math done, it's just not enough force to move the ship like that.

I just looked it up, and I am indeed mistaken. Ooops. :headbang:

ETA: Here's a link to the article I discovered: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-022.htm

Have to say it, 3 British ships,

HMS Victory, Flagship of the victorious British Fleet at Trafalgar
HMS Warrior, this was the first steam powered Ironclad and made every other ship useless overnight
HMS Dreadnought, Once again, the first of what we today consider to be a battleship. Also making every other warship obsolete overnight.

On the other hand

The German Scharnhorst and Gneisenau and her sister. Outlasted most other German surface ships in the war.

To be honest, after reading the battle cruiser argument. They all had to be reasonably good or they wouldn't be used. And one last thing, Yes the Rupluse's squadron did keep the Scharnhorst in check, however the ship that sank her was the HMS Belfast, a normal 6in gun cruiser. This ship is also believed to of fired the first shots of the D - Day landings.

The Monitor. Or the Merrimack. :p

The Monitor. Or the Merrimack. :p the Monitor was a wonderfully designed weapon... too bad she wasn't especially seaworthy. the Virginia was less revolutionary, but certainly effective in a Road Warrior sorta way.

:/ Guys, Dreadnought was not as incredibly revolutionary as you guys are trying to paint due to her armament. (well, yes but not individually) Naval designing was heading in that direction after that Italian guy Vittorio Cuniberti published an article on the subject in Jane's Fighting Ships.

Satsuma, the Japanese design, was launched first. (though a shortage of gun barrels resulted in an interim mixed armament which was subsequently replaced) Satsuma also maintained the triple expansion engines that other contemporaries used, lacking the British Steam Turbine technology. Satsuma was essentially the Lord Nelson class with some serious modifications, though her sister ship Aki had steam turbines and lots of improvements.



Dreadnought's revolutionary features were the speed she obtained from her powerplant (making her analogous to the Iowas for her time) and the damned excessive rate at which she was constructed. She went from laid down to launched in something like six months, and then another nine to entering service. Dreadnought was stronger and faster than anything that floated when launched.



The South Carolinas, which featured rear sighting hoods and superfiring turrets alongside all-big-gun armaments, were laid down about the same time as Dreadnought. (Well, they were being laid down as Dreadnought was being launched, but had been ordered at the same time) She was also 2000 tons lighter mean displacement, and though lacking 2 12" guns against Dreadnought, her superfiring arrangement allowed equal broadside performance. South Carlina was essentially the Connecticut class with some modifications XD SoCal also maintained triple expansion engines for range purposes and to maintain uniformity within the US Battle Line, a HUGE focus of American naval design.