Best Ships WWII (first half) in Fighting Ships Of The World Forum

RSS
Email

0 Points

Best Ships WWII (first half)

Author	Comment
Joshua Kintner		#21	[-]
Posts: 2683 Aug 14 11 7:13 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Bgile pretty well summed it up for me. IMO, the Scheer's as rated were better heavy cruisers than the Hippers. 12,100 std compared to the Hipper's 16,170 std, mounting 6x11" guns with a trade off to speed.
	Remove this ad
Vincenzo		#22	[-]
Posts: 440 Aug 14 11 8:07 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Admiral Hippers are sure large cruisers but not are alone Admiral Hipper L (wl) 194.6 B 21.3 Full load ~19k Ton Prinz Eugen 199.5 21.7 idem Baltimore 202.4 21.3 ~18k Ton Takao 201.7 19 ~16k Ton Mogami 198.3 20.6 ~15k Ton On unreliable power plant, PE go in atlantic with Bismarck w/o trouble AFAIK The British CAs were older with limited armour so it's not so strange that are smaller The endurance: the Baltimores has 10% or less more range or not? (oh yes London had around two time the range but at only 60% of speed) the endurance sure it's not for long patrol in the ocean but probably they were not build for this i take out Deustschland from CA category for not take criticism, but sure Deutschland are good cruiser, very good before of fast BBs Last Edited By: Vincenzo Aug 14 11 9:24 PM. Edited 1 times.
bgile		#23	[-]
Posts: 3569 Aug 14 11 10:22 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I was under the impression that the Hipper class power plant was extremely unreliable. Is this in error? I won't compare to Baltimore because I don't think they fit the criteria for this list (First half of war).
Vincenzo		#24	[-]
Posts: 440 Aug 15 11 1:45 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	bgile wrote: I was under the impression that the Hipper class power plant was extremely unreliable. Is this in error? I won't compare to Baltimore because I don't think they fit the criteria for this list (First half of war). idk the Baltimore not fit the criteria for choice the best cruiser in this list, but is a large cruiser like the Hippers if US go to same solution late we can't take the german first as a disadvantage
bgile		#25	[-]
Posts: 3569 Aug 15 11 7:06 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Baltimore has heavier armor, is faster, more powerful secondary, an extra 8" gun, better machinery and heavier AA armament on the same displacement ... actually a bit less. But it doesn't go in first half of war. But if you want to compare Baltimore, how could you possibly consider Hipper to be BETTER? Last Edited By: bgile Aug 15 11 7:08 AM. Edited 1 times.
Vincenzo		#26	[-]
Posts: 440 Aug 15 11 7:29 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	bgile i never write that Hippers are betters of Baltimore and i never compared its and i dislike people that change the other affirmation. i only write larger CA were the trend and this was not take a disadvantage if germans go on this before of the others.
bgile		#27	[-]
Posts: 3569 Aug 15 11 8:52 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	OK, I can't disagree that larger CA were the trend.
Getz		#28	[-]
Posts: 1160 Aug 16 11 1:34 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I think that the point is that the Hippers were not a lot of ship for their displacement. On approx 17,000 tons I'd expect either more guns, bigger guns, more armour or some combination of the above. As things turned out I don't think that the Hippers had much of a meaningful advantage over any of the treaty Heavy cruisers, which is a bit crap when you have a 70% greater displacement. On 17,000 tons I'm pretty sure that you could have built a nine gun Deutschland, or a Deutschland with 31+ knots - either of which would have been much more useful ships. Besides, the engine issues make them poor ships regardless of their displacement...
Vincenzo		#29	[-]
Posts: 440 Aug 16 11 3:12 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	someone can give detail on "possible" engine issues on Hippers? Comparing Hipper with Kent the difference in full displacement it's around 35% both had 4x2 203 turret, but the secondary weapons were 4x1-102/45 on Kent 6x2-105/60 on Hipper (i know that late most of Kent get 4x2-102/45 but i've compared orginal displacement) light weapons were 8 single 2 (pompom) or 3pdr on Kent and 6x2-37/83 e 10 20mm automatic gun on Hipper Kent protection out magazines were near useless vs 8", Hipper protection cover large area also if not with thicker armour like some others "best" cruisers (the alone CA build with 6 twin AA turret are the Hippers, Baltimores and Algerie (the italian were build with 8 but all go down to 6 in late 30s for add automatic guns)
pppet		#30	[-]
Posts: 609 Aug 17 11 12:17 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I selected the Algerie because it had speed and protection along with good endurance. The Hipper (like other German designs) was quite wasteful of tonnage. I would rather prefer a Takao of a Chokai to it since I would then have two extra 8 inch guns, same speed and protection, better endurance and reliable engines. But the Algerie is a better balanced designs and so are the Zaras. Again Illustrious because of her heavy armour protection which gave her a second level of defence. If the Stukas had given the Lexington or the Akagi the same treatment as she got I daresay they would have sunk spectacularly. Why are Fletchers out of time in the first half ? They were designed in 1939 and started coming of the ways from March 1941, so while a little late but still within the time limit.
	Remove this ad
Vincenzo		#31	[-]
Posts: 440 Aug 17 11 12:29 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	for the Fletchers: if a ship was designed or was laid down it's not same that fight in the first half of WWII, the fletchers go to operation in fall '42 on the CV sure Illustrious had the armored decks but only 15 fighters and 18 torpedo bombers so think the yorktown there with no the armored decks but with, for tell, 35 fighters and 35 bombers, stuka maybe never go to attack it Last Edited By: Vincenzo Aug 17 11 12:39 PM. Edited 1 times.
Larrikin22		#32	[-]
Posts: 4340 Aug 17 11 1:39 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Vincenzo wrote: for the Fletchers: if a ship was designed or was laid down it's not same that fight in the first half of WWII, the fletchers go to operation in fall '42 on the CV sure Illustrious had the armored decks but only 15 fighters and 18 torpedo bombers so think the yorktown there with no the armored decks but with, for tell, 35 fighters and 35 bombers, stuka maybe never go to attack it The Illustrious also had considerably better AA defences in the first half of the war in comparison to USN or IJN carriers. And remember, those big carriers weren't operating Wildcats or Zeroes at that time. Try running a USN or IJN carrier into what the Illustrious faced in 1941 and you are going to lose those carriers. They are just going to take too much damage through their flight decks. And that's even with the very good USN damage control. You can lead a leftard to knowledge, but you can't make them think
Vincenzo		#33	[-]
Posts: 440 Aug 17 11 2:49 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	On the AA the Illustrious had 8 twin 4.5" and 6 pompom and 10 Oerlikon just for the operation in 1/41 Yorktown had 8 5"/38 and 4 1.1"(and 24 .5") they not got supplemetary AA but was not in war so AA Illustrious AA it's best fro automatic gun, imho the 4.5" ammo was too heavy for AA weapon they had Buffalo and the grumman biplane enough for the stukas (also the A5M of the japanese are enough)
emc		#34	[-]
Posts: 6743 Aug 17 11 7:38 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Vincenzo wrote: for the Fletchers: if a ship was designed or was laid down it's not same that fight in the first half of WWII, the fletchers go to operation in fall '42 on the CV sure Illustrious had the armored decks but only 15 fighters and 18 torpedo bombers so think the yorktown there with no the armored decks but with, for tell, 35 fighters and 35 bombers, stuka maybe never go to attack it Any ship's defenses can be overwhelmed, and the USN did increase the number of fighters it had assigned to its carrier air groups, possibly in response to that consideration. I do not have the technical expertise to answer the question as to whether the RN made the correct choices in its carrier designs, given the constraints it was operating under when the ships and their air groups were specified. I also do not have any idea of how the USN's carriers would differ if their main operating environment was to be the North Atlantic, North Sea, and Mediterranean. Certainly, in the North Sea and Mediterranean the likelihood of attack by land-based air was much greater than it was in much of the Pacific. Do I think the RN carriers were the best ships of the first half of WW2? No. I'm not even sure the question "what were the best ships of the first half of ww2?" can be answered in any meaningful way because any discussion of "best" is going to mix the technical qualities of the ship, its tactical employment, and its strategic impact. It's also going to get muddled because it asks, by implication, that somebody compare a battleship with a "Flower" class corvette.
Vincenzo		#35	[-]
Posts: 440 Aug 17 11 8:57 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	emc, for true non all defenses can be overwhelmed almost in real world, the attacker has some, at moment fixed, capability so can overhelmed only some defenses. Maybe that 35 fighters were not enough and maybe also 54 fighters are not enough but sure the attacking stukas had more trouble that with only 15 (and data the fixed number of stukas available maybe that 54 fighters are more enough). In close sea the possibility of air attack from ground based forces give sure most value at the two armoured decks of british CV. emc none here want compare a BBs with a corvette, for true corvette are completelly out, i've posted the category within choice the best true "best" it's hard definition
Vincenzo		#36	[-]
Posts: 440 Aug 27 11 8:11 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	backing to my choice for the best CA, if you want a CA with radar Admiral Hippers go hard in the first place, they were the alone with radar since the build. if we take out the radar and range requirement Zaras go in the first place with a equilibrated requirement (for surface warfare) Wichita came out from the group, it's not armoured like Zaras or Algerie, has not radar since september 39 like Hipper, but as good protection, has radar since 7/41. But the true bad point that has not automatic guns until 7/41 continue... for a CA with good AA capability, since the start, Hipper back in game (US CA don't get 1.1 until. at best, mid 41), with good AA weaponry there are also the Zaras (w/o Radar) . riepilogue: Wichita, good armour, radar since 7/41, top range, automatic guns since 7/41 Zara, top armour, no radar, shortest range, automatic guns since the start Hipper, mediocre armour, radar since the start, mediocre range, automatic guns since the start Algerie, top armour, radar since 4/42, good range, no automatic guns Takao, mediocre armour, radar since 3/42, good range, automatic guns since the start County, mediocre armour, radar since 2/41, top range, automatic guns since the start p.s. the grade on the armour it's not on the quality of the steel but on the level of protection Last Edited By: Vincenzo Aug 28 11 3:38 PM. Edited 3 times.
ickysdad	yes but..	#37	[-]
Posts: 5411 Aug 28 11 5:39 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Larrikin22 wrote: Vincenzo wrote: for the Fletchers: if a ship was designed or was laid down it's not same that fight in the first half of WWII, the fletchers go to operation in fall '42 on the CV sure Illustrious had the armored decks but only 15 fighters and 18 torpedo bombers so think the yorktown there with no the armored decks but with, for tell, 35 fighters and 35 bombers, stuka maybe never go to attack it The Illustrious also had considerably better AA defences in the first half of the war in comparison to USN or IJN carriers. And remember, those big carriers weren't operating Wildcats or Zeroes at that time. Try running a USN or IJN carrier into what the Illustrious faced in 1941 and you are going to lose those carriers. They are just going to take too much damage through their flight decks. And that's even with the very good USN damage control. A Yorktown maynot have Wildcats but they sure could carry a lot more of whatever is availiable. Also it wasn't bombs that sunk any USN CV during the first year of war but torpedoes and just look what it took to sink Hornet heck if Yorktown had luxury of being as close to Pearl Harbor as Illustrious was to Malta she may have survived to.
Joshua Kintner		#38	[-]
Posts: 2683 Aug 29 11 12:03 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	ickysdad wrote: Larrikin22 wrote: Vincenzo wrote: for the Fletchers: if a ship was designed or was laid down it's not same that fight in the first half of WWII, the fletchers go to operation in fall '42 on the CV sure Illustrious had the armored decks but only 15 fighters and 18 torpedo bombers so think the yorktown there with no the armored decks but with, for tell, 35 fighters and 35 bombers, stuka maybe never go to attack it The Illustrious also had considerably better AA defences in the first half of the war in comparison to USN or IJN carriers. And remember, those big carriers weren't operating Wildcats or Zeroes at that time. Try running a USN or IJN carrier into what the Illustrious faced in 1941 and you are going to lose those carriers. They are just going to take too much damage through their flight decks. And that's even with the very good USN damage control. A Yorktown maynot have Wildcats but they sure could carry a lot more of whatever is availiable. Also it wasn't bombs that sunk any USN CV during the first year of war but torpedoes and just look what it took to sink Hornet heck if Yorktown had luxury of being as close to Pearl Harbor as Illustrious was to Malta she may have survived to. Going by what the max Aircraft complements normally were, but using aircraft only available in 1939 for their complements; CV Enterprise -36xFighters (Brewster F2A Buffalo) -36xDive Bombers (Northrop BT) -18xTorpedo Bombers (Douglas TBD Devastator) CV Akagi -27xFighters (A5M4 Claude) -27xTorpedo Bombers (B5N2 Kate) -18xDive Bombers (D1A Susie)
.	Hi	#39	[-]
Posts: 660 Aug 29 11 12:35 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I don't think that the USS Enterprise would be able to carry the airwing above, as the Brewster fighter did not have folding wings. Here is a link to some info about the Battle of Coral Sea, where USS Yorktown deployed with F4F-3's in her airwing. Because the F4F-3 did not have folding wings, I suspect that the numbers of F4F's in her airwing would be closer to the number of Brewster fighters that could be carried by USS Enterprise. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/logs/CV/cv5-Coral-prelim.html#A In general the total airwing on USS Yorktown at this time appears to have been 30 - SBDs 9 - TBDs 14 - F4F-3s I do not believe that USS Yorktown's fighter complement grew to larger numbers until the introduction of the folding wing F4F-4 variant as present at the Battle of Midway. According to the link below the airwing at that battle was: 36 - SBDs 12 - TBDs 25 - F4F-4's http://www.history.navy.mil/docs/wwii/mid7.htm Regards Pat Last Edited By: Aug 29 11 12:43 AM. Edited 3 times.
jlyons97		#40	[-]
Posts: 4118 Aug 29 11 3:11 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The issue is theoretical aircraft capacity. Re Yorktown's report for Coral Sea reflects the numbers and types participating in the strikes against against their IJN opponents: "This report, where it pertains to aircraft operations, was compiled from the narratives submitted by the personnel participating in the attack." It does not then reflect the aircraft embarked which, per "The First Team" was: 21 F4F-3 36 SBD 12 TBD This total (69) is typical of the complements of Enterprise and Yorktown in all combat operations up to Midway. The fighter complement at Midway with folding wing -4s did not dramatically increase, not because the folding wings did not allow more airplanes but because more fighters were not available. By contrast a few months later, the Yorktown CVs were carrying, using CV-6's complement on the first day of the invasion of Guadacanal as an example, about 80 airplanes. To include 30 fighters. Two months later on Oct 16 the total was 95, to include 36 fighters. Not all these would be in use on a given day. Again using Enterprise as an example, 69 on Oct 16. One conclusion I would draw from these statistics is, if more -3 Wildcats could have been embarked earlier, there was certainly room for them. Last Edited By: jlyons97 Aug 29 11 4:15 AM. Edited 2 times.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Best Ships WWII (first half)