| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 JonSidneyB |
What where the most underated battleships? |
Lead | |
|
Registered Member
Posts: 8 (27-Feb-2008 22:32:32) |
Instead of the tit for tat arguments over what is best, how about those designs that were sound for what they were built for that get no attention. This is
about design and not if they were improperly used or didn't have a chance to be deployed properly.
Who is most underated? |
||
|
seasick |
|||
|
Posts: 4449 (27-Feb-2008 22:50:34) |
After WW2 I would say the South Dakotas were under rated. The +30 knot speeds of the Iowas never had a serious impact on their operations afterward. The South
Dakotas could have done everything the Iowas did in Korea, NJ in Vietnam, and all of them in the 600 ship fleet.
|
||
|
E F Draaijers |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 131 (27-Feb-2008 23:26:51) |
More likely the USN BB's all were overrated, since they never had shown what they were capable of doing and neither had ever been engaged in the sort of
combat they were designed to fight. None was ever seriously hit or damaged, appart from a single torpedo on USS North Carolina and supervisual damage to the
superstructure on USS South Dakota in her Barfight with the IJN. (Luckily the single 14 inch shellhit did not explode, since the secondary result of this hit
could have caused a chainreaction of ammunitionexplosions in the turret hit, resulting to a main magazineexplosion most likely.)
Most likley the most underated ships are the Italian Loitorio class Battleships, since they never had been tested in a surfacefight with opposing BB's, but were mostly in port in the WW2, and recieved damage from torpedoes mainly, showing their only achillesheel in the failing Pugliese System. As BB's they were exelent with very tough armor and high speed, as well as hard hitting guns, powerfull enough to defeat any BB afloat, except Yamato. |
||
|
BOBC 59 |
|||
|
Posts: 1082 (28-Feb-2008 00:05:19) |
E f draaijers
The questioned asked was what was the most underated BB and you take it and turn it around to fit your adgenda to bash the U S N as u usully do NUFF SAID BOBS
For those that fought for it,Freedom has a taste and meaning ,The protected will never know.
|
||
|
1Big Rich |
|||
|
Posts: 1832 (28-Feb-2008 00:23:19) |
E F Draaijers wrote:So, by your logic, Sea Wolf or Astute would be over rated as submarines because they've never been used to fight other submarines, but a Kilo class like India's Sindhushastra would be underrated because it's never been used fight other submarines?
Your Text Signature ...
|
||
|
Fermi2 |
Prove | ||
|
Posts: 3211 (28-Feb-2008 00:32:00) |
E F Draaijers wrote:
Prove the the misguided statements from your first paragraph. Provide sources please.
|
||
|
Tiornu |
|||
|
Posts: 6955 (28-Feb-2008 01:24:28) Corn Boss |
"Luckily the single 14 inch shellhit did not explode, since the secondary result of this hit could have caused a chainreaction of ammunitionexplosions
in the turret hit, resulting to a main magazineexplosion most likely."
By now, you probably understand why people hesitate to take you seriously. Making unsupported assertions and factually inaccurate statements, time and again, has eroded all the credibility from your posts. The 14in hit to SoDak's barbette most certainly did explode, as indicated by the big hole in the deck and the extensive splinter damage. If you are not familiar with the subject matter, you will do better to respond with questions rather than the unqualified statements you usually make. "Most likley the most underated ships are the Italian Loitorio class Battleships" This I can actually agree with, though I find this interesting--you find Littorio underrated because she didn't do much fighting, while you find the US battleships overrated because they didn't do much fighting.
Last Edited By: Tiornu
28-Feb-2008 02:52:12.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Desert Sailor |
|||
|
Posts: 1120 (28-Feb-2008 01:26:09) |
EFD... "overrated" was not the question. Pay attention, there might be a quiz.
When touring Massachusetts some years ago I distinctly remember a description of a shell hit (can't remember the size) that took out part of ...sick bay? Nothing in the DANFS or on her web site mentions this. Hmm.. do I have her confused with North Carolina? BOBC59? Under-rated? Nelrod? Slow as all get out, but who wants to face those 16" hammers? Interesting question to be sure. It seems to me that most of the BBs that don't rate highly have good reason for their ranking. charley aka Desert Sailor |
||
|
Getz |
|||
|
Posts: 372 (28-Feb-2008 02:20:59) |
Tiornu wrote: To be fair, that's not exactly what he said - it was more along the lines of that the Littorios were underrated as they didn't do much fighting and
this is taken as evidence of their inferiority (claiming, for example, that Italian shells where inferior when we really don't have any data on the
subject) whilst the US fast BBs didn't do much fighting but this often subverted as evidence of their superiority - For example, the fact that the US
battleships never got to shoot at a moving capital ship at long range is often subverted to imply that 30k+ yrd hits would have happened if only the
opportunity had arisen to try for them. This is, of course, a double standard
|
||
|
BOBC 59 |
|||
|
Posts: 1083 (28-Feb-2008 02:52:28) |
Charley
It was a crews berthing that was hit by a 7.2 or there abouts not the sick bay it started a fire that was put out immediately onlt a few bunks scorched It is now a artifact display area The Battle ensign forn Casa blanca is there also EFD BB59 has neva had a elctrical problem the one the BB57 had was a personnell not a built in fault it mite behoove u to do a little research before u engage your mouth NUFF SAID BOBC
For those that fought for it,Freedom has a taste and meaning ,The protected will never know.
|
||
|
seasick |
Espana | ||
|
Posts: 4450 (28-Feb-2008 03:14:23) |
As to the actual thrust of the thread, I'd say the most underated BBs might well be the Espana class. A neat, tidy little class that managed to squeeze quite a lot of bang out of not very much buck. Certainly there were much more impressive vessels out there, but they were pretty much exactly what Spain wanted and needed for the price they were prepared to pay. When you ditch titles and go strictly by operational requirements and very limited funding avalible for construction you can't do much better. |
||
|
Tiornu |
|||
|
Posts: 6956 (28-Feb-2008 03:42:43) Corn Boss |
"To be fair, that's not exactly what he said"
I went back and fixed my typo. "I'd say the most underated BBs might well be the Espana class." You will want to get a copy of the latest Warship International issue, which includes the finest English-language treatment of the Espana class that I have ever seen. |
||
|
E F Draaijers |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 132 (28-Feb-2008 10:52:43) |
That is your private interpretation of the words I mentioned. I consider the technologically highly advanced USN SSN's to be the worlds best ever, sinche
they have proven to be effective in other than pure combatmissions too. They are excelent in surveilance and spy missions, credditing their design, so you are
a bit overreacting here it seems. I personally am a submariner, so I know what they are capable of doing.
|
||
|
E F Draaijers |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 133 (28-Feb-2008 11:05:08) |
[Edited to remove unattributed quotation of an entire essay by Nathan Okun. See http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-092.htm . Note that the photo on that page does not show the
shell hit the essay discusses.]
Last Edited By: Tiornu
28-Feb-2008 12:31:30.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
E F Draaijers |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 134 (28-Feb-2008 11:07:36) |
So I have to admid I was partly mistaken in the shell did not detonate, but I have to reverse it to: It did not detonate as designed, since it nehaved
different from a normal practise routine, when striking USS South Dakota. (Perhaps a fine excemple of a decapping of an AP round at last.)
|
||
|
E F Draaijers |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 135 (28-Feb-2008 11:13:46) |
For comments on BB design, perhaps read the works of "Conway's All the World's Battleships", Breyer's: "Schlagtschiffe und
Schlagtkreuzer 1904-1971", TYarrant: "King George V class battleships", Friedman: "US Battelships", Garzke & Dulin: "Axis and
Neutral battleships of WW2, etc.
|
||
|
JonSidneyB |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 10 (28-Feb-2008 11:42:19) |
Hmmm, This thread took an odd turn.
I thought this thread would give another way of looking at things and bring out the postive traits in ships that are less talked about. It seems there are so many conversations that go something like this. "The abcdf can easily take a fdcba one on one, the fdcba does not have a chance because of its dohicky." "No, the fdcba can control the range so no matter what happens the fdcba can take on a dozen abcdf's." "You are forgetting, the abcdf's has such a big immunity zone that it can get hit with the all of the magazines in there entirety and the paint will not show a mark." "That armor scheme is worthless, small arms fire could defeat it. In fact most service rifle cartridges can sink one of those with one hit" Ok I am stretching things a bit here but I think you see what I mean. I was in hopes that this thread would get people talking about good ships that don't get as much attention in a positive way. perhaps see some features that are worthwhile without all the nationalistic brow beating. I do like the Loitorio's as well. The short legs should not count against as much since they were intended for the Med. The guns might not have as much barrel life but it seems changing them was fast. High performance rifles have the same problem of short barrel life but that goes with the territory when you are pushing velocity to extreams. I would not count the Loitorio's out of fight. I think it would have a fighting chance against anyting it would be likely to face. Well, except being horribly outnumbered. Nelrod and Espana, I have never heard of these ships. Looks like I have something to look up.
Last Edited By: JonSidneyB
28-Feb-2008 11:47:30.
Edited 2 times.
|
||
|
Tiornu |
|||
|
Posts: 6957 (28-Feb-2008 12:28:23) Corn Boss |
"So I have to admid I was partly mistaken in the shell did not detonate, but I have to reverse it to: It did not detonate as designed"
This is another unsupported assertion. It's possible the shell detonated prematurely which might explain the failure to penetrate. If that's not the case, then I can't identify any way in which the shell might have detonated in an "undesigned" manner. By the way, extended quotations from other pages without attribution are considered poor form or, more specifically, plagiarism. "Nelrod and Espana, I have never heard of these ships." Nelson and Rodney were the first two battleships built after the Washington Treaty. They showed some modern features, but their speed standards matched better with old battleships than with modern ones. As for Espana, time to get that issue of Warship International. |
||
|
JonSidneyB |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 11 (28-Feb-2008 12:48:59) |
Ah, Nelson and Rodney. I am well aware of them. I was looking for the ship Nelrod....duh.
|
||
|
FreeloaderUK |
|||
|
Posts: 62 (28-Feb-2008 12:59:35) |
King George V class- despite the 14" guns she was actually quite a good ship- never really got to show potential. most of the bad press comes due to the
short life of the Prince of Wales- but she was not fit to go into action so quickly against Bismarck- & no ship would have survived the air attack that
sunk her.
|
||
|
JonSidneyB |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 12 (28-Feb-2008 13:50:28) |
How about adding the positives to these ships.
I think for the KGV we have speed and outstanding armor? |
||
