Best battleship of World War 1?..... in Battleship Vs Battleship Forum

RSS
Email

0 Points

Best battleship of World War 1?.....

Author	Comment
rebjag	Best battleship of World War 1?.....	Lead	[-]
Posts: 14 Jul 23 12 5:32 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Which battleship commissioned in time to participate in WW1 of any nation do you think was the best all-around battleship? Consider the usual following and any other factor you can think of that I missed.: Armament: not just size of guns, but effectiveness, reliability, accuracy, etc. Secondary guns: See above. Speed. Range. Armor. Gunnery Directors. Thanks!
	Remove this ad
boblaurabyu		#1	[-]
Posts: 985 Jul 23 12 5:38 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Yauvz, was effective enough to pull in a new ally for Germany.
CV12 Hornet		#2	[-]
Posts: 23 Jul 23 12 6:10 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	My candidates, by country: Germany - Bayern class Britain - Queen Elizabeth class* U.S. - Pennsylvania class Japan - Ise class *The Queen Elizabeths get the nod over the revenges due to their higher speed. All four of these classes represented a very significant advance over their predecessors, and no other nation built equivalent battleships during World War I. But which is the best? Armament: Queen Elizabeth. While Pennsylvania and Ise classes had heavier broadsides, the American gun had dispersion problems and the Ises had a very inefficient 6-turret layout. The German 15" gun, meanwhile, was less effective due to the lighter shell. Secondary guns: Ise. While the Japanese 5.5" guns was lighter than the British 6" and German 150mm guns, it fired faster, was more numerous, and wasn't that much lighter. The American 5" is penalized for being the lightest of the bunch. As for layout, all four ships had main deck casemates, making them all equal. Speed: Queen Elizabeth. 24 kts for the QEs versus 21 kts for the pennsylvanias, 22 for the Bayerns, and 23 for the Ises. Range: ? Don't have any range figures handy. Definitely not Bayern, though. Armor: Tie between Pennsylvania and Bayern. Pennsylvania has a much better armor layout that is thicker where it needs to be, Bayern, like all other German capital ships, is incredibly tough, and actually has a somewhat thicker belt than Pennsylvania. QE gets honorable mention. Gunnery Directors: No clue. Probably either QE or Bayern, due to wartime improvements. Winner: Queen Elizabeth.
USSInidiana		#3	[-]
Posts: 370 Jul 23 12 7:17 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I like what CV12 Hornet has to say and agree QE is probably the best simply because they actually fought and had an influence on the war.
Kitsune		#4	[-]
Posts: 1419 Jul 23 12 7:40 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	As far as range, I suspect it is the Pennsylvania because it had to operate in the Pacific. Range was an important factor in United States capital ship construction. Didn't the QE not really able to achieve 24 knots in service? “Wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair and all the terrible things that happen to us, come because we actually deserve them? So now I take comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the Universe” Marcus Cole - Babylon 5
ICS		#5	[-]
Posts: 949 Jul 23 12 9:51 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	QE speed. Valiant was supposedly slowest of the pack leaving the squadron tied to the slowest. (Which would be the case in all circumstances including 21knotters). QE's were 23knots+ I've read, they were overweight but would pick up speed as the fuel got used. Bit of a dark art but max speed could also depend on how deep the North sea was where you were, though probably more applicable to the BC's. Dogger Bank itself would affect performance apparantly. Ian
Drachinifel		#6	[-]
Posts: 230 Jul 23 12 10:12 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	At Jutland Beatty made off at 24 knots at one point, Jellicoe raised this later as a mistake because the 5th BS could not close with Beatty, its squadron speed being the same. Note, the 5th BS did not lose ground to the BCF, which indicates and supports the notion that at least when new they could scrape up 24knots at a push. They were designed for 25 knots, but only some of them made that speed on trials, and not in service.
Kitsune		#7	[-]
Posts: 1419 Jul 23 12 11:41 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Some additional thoughts: On secondary batteries, the US found that all of the secondary batteries in the hull were close to useless. . .Why the Mississippi class was built without them (even though the positions were retained.) I don't now why anybody elses would have been much better. On the US 14/45, I believe I read that they were not quite as bad as far as dispersion as the 14/50 mounts “Wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair and all the terrible things that happen to us, come because we actually deserve them? So now I take comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the Universe” Marcus Cole - Babylon 5
Blutarski		#8	[-]
Posts: 505 Jul 23 12 12:40 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Tricky question. Are items such as propellant volatility and defects in AP projectiles also to be taken into consideration? My vote would have to go to the BADEN/BAYERN Class. With the QE Class at war load, there was only about a knot difference in their maximum speeds. The German ships carried heavier armor, better sub-division, and better damage control arrangements. The main and secondary battery guns were ballistically pretty much a wash in practical terms, but the German ships carried better projectiles (see note below) and much safer propellant. The German FC system (IMHO) was better than that of the British under equal conditions of visibility. Strictly my opinion, ofcourse. B Note - No "Greenboys" were ever, to the best of my knowledge, fired in anger in WW1.
ICS		#9	[-]
Posts: 949 Jul 23 12 1:33 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	USN 14in gun dispersion. IMHO Analysis seems to depend on what you read and which gun you refer to. (45cal or 50cal). Some ships (45cal) had tighter patterns than others and just may reflect the standard of training. There was also mixed triple mount (single sleeve) turrets which possibly confused the issue with interference. Also firing 12 rounds per salvo you increase the chance of a statistical outlyer. The 14/50 was supposed to be the worst but thats post WW1. Most triple turrets of all nations had the same difficulties. The Marylands were much prefered to the Tennessee's in that regard. In fact most countries the 50cal version of a 45cal gun seems to result in individual dispersion. Ian
ICS		#10	[-]
Posts: 949 Jul 23 12 1:50 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Best Battleship of WW1 Very much IMHO. British Battleships were frozen in design at the beginning of WW1 and construction was limited. However they suited their purpose. US design and build carried on. German BB's were also subject to constraints. Best Battleship of WW1 seems to imply last design actually built but each nations design philosophies came into play and the men in them. 1) QE 2) USN standards 3) (close) Baden Ian.
	Remove this ad
Getz		#11	[-]
Posts: 1161 Jul 23 12 2:10 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	ICS wrote: QE speed. Valiant was supposedly slowest of the pack leaving the squadron tied to the slowest. (Which would be the case in all circumstances including 21knotters). QE's were 23knots+ I've read, they were overweight but would pick up speed as the fuel got used. Bit of a dark art but max speed could also depend on how deep the North sea was where you were, though probably more applicable to the BC's. Dogger Bank itself would affect performance apparantly. Ian I believe that Valiant was unable to exceed 23.5 knots due to defective turbine blades - all the other QEs manged 24 knots on trials, although service speeds are a whole other kettle of fish. In practice, the 5th BS were a 23 knot formation, but at Jutland they did officially manage to work up to 23.5 knots during the run to the north with Valiant being the limiting factor. Of course, during this phase of the battle the nominally 21 knot Kaisers and Konigs were gaining ground on the QEs, which begs a whole other question on exactly how fast the German battleships were. In service, the German battlecruisers struggled to match their trial speeds (Welsh coal and all that) whereas the battleships exceeded theirs. Even so, I still think it's correct to credit the QEs with being the fastest battleships of WW1 As to the best? IMO - QE, Bayern, Pensylvania and Ise in that order, but with the first three being very close to one another.
Capn Carl		#12	[-]
Posts: 551 Jul 23 12 4:08 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	My vote goes to the QEs. In a fight, they might have been a close 2nd to the Bayerns, but that's not the whole picture. Range and habitability are just as important. And here's the kicker: the QEs were available earlier, and when it counted most.
sergeante		#13	[-]
Posts: 4258 Jul 23 12 6:01 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Kind of funny how "best battleship" turns into the best of the ultimate examples... You...ze Amerikan armee
Larrikin22		#14	[-]
Posts: 4356 Jul 23 12 8:06 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	sergeante wrote: Kind of funny how "best battleship" turns into the best of the ultimate examples... Now which fitted their design intention the best would be a whole 'nother kettle of fish. The USN were looking for longer range, and so probably gave up a bit somewhere along the line, even if it was in greater costs. The RN intended the Royal Oaks to be specifically to match the Germans in the North Sea, and thus were slower, smaller, and cheaper than the QEs, but had the same guns and slightly better armour. The Germans were looking for ships that could survive an encounter with the Grand Fleet that would almost certainly out number them, and possibly out number them by lots. Different design paradigms are going to produce different ships, even in the same navy, as you get with the QEs and ROs. You can lead a leftard to knowledge, but you can't make them think
sergeante		#15	[-]
Posts: 4258 Jul 23 12 8:52 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Larrikin22 wrote: Now which fitted their design intention the best would be a whole 'nother kettle of fish. Which is what I was getting at. We should give rebjag credit for specifically stating: "not just size" when referring to armament. But in doing so, I suppose we had better note how nobody seemed to listen. Now I know what people are going to say -- even if you take the size of guns out of the equation, later ships were just "better", in this, that, or the other category. That's true, but only because battleship development post-Dreadnought was a self-conscious exercise in incremental improvement. Each next ship was supposed to be bigger, faster, better armed and better armored than the previous. So in absolute terms, "best" WW1 battleship is a trivial question. Pick between the ultimate examples from all of the powers and have done. British participants will say QE class, US participants will say Pennsylvania class, and so on. If one wants to have a deeper, more meaningful discussion, it should be about best ship WRT its design objectives, or best ship among its contemporaries. You...ze Amerikan armee
CA30ist		#16	[-]
Posts: 273 Jul 24 12 4:51 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Since somebody else already--and promptly--vitiated the terms of the question by naming YAUVZ (sic), I am following suite by naming my "best battleship"...At least a relative of GOEBEN as it were: the Iron Dog, SMS DERFFLINGER.
sergeante		#17	[-]
Posts: 4258 Jul 24 12 5:06 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	CA30ist wrote: Since somebody else already--and promptly--vitiated the terms of the question by naming YAUVZ (sic), I am following suite by naming my "best battleship"...At least a relative of GOEBEN as it were: the Iron Dog, SMS DERFFLINGER. It's certainly the choice with the Timex seal of approval. You...ze Amerikan armee
Admiral Beez		#18	[-]
Posts: 8088 Jul 24 12 7:30 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	My votes on Canopus. Unlike the dreadnoughts that spent much of their lives at port in the North Sea waiting for the German breakout, Canopus was in action around the globe. 1) Dec 1914, scored a direct hit overland on Gneisenau, persuading the Germans against racing into Stanley and attacking the Sturdee's main force whilst coaling. Her captain would later make Admiral http://www.dreadnoughtpro...eathcoat_Salusbury_Grant 2) Feb-Mar 1915, bombarded Turkish forts at the Dardanelles, taking hits that tore off main mast and damaged funnel and wardroom. 3) April 1915, under heavy fire Canopus towed sister ship Albion off a sand bank 4) Jan 1916, Canopus covers the Allied retreat from Gallipoli. 5) April 1916, back to Britain for refit and in 1917 addition of anti-aircraft guns. Of course Canopus and the other pre-dreadnoughts can't be considered as the best BBs of WW1, however they were great value for money and served globally whilst the big ships stayed in Home waters.
Kitsune		#19	[-]
Posts: 1419 Jul 24 12 8:43 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Same way the US Standards could consider to have done most of the "work" during World War II “Wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair and all the terrible things that happen to us, come because we actually deserve them? So now I take comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the Universe” Marcus Cole - Babylon 5
JAG88		#20	[-]
Posts: 472 Jul 26 12 2:22 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The QEs get too much undeserved praise IMHO, as far as RN BBS go I rather take the better protected Rs. The QEs narrow belt was a liability as the crippling shot on Warspite at Jutland showed, and that was further complicated by how overweight those ships ended up at launch causing the belt to be submerged and not protect the WL. At Jutland, out of four 1 got crippled by a single shot and 2 other came within a hair of blowing up, hardly a commendable performance. They had barely a kt on the Königs, even less on the Bayerns, and even had a slightly shorter range. Their redeeming point was the guns, but since they shared that with Rs they can hardly be praised for them, can they? I would take the Bayerns due to better protection and shell/gun performance, the Penns are tempting due to the number of barrels, but their shell and accuracy issues are too much of a drawback. The "88" in my name does not refer to "HH" and therefore has no political connotations or in any way means support for the absurd so-called nazi ideology, it is just a number that I have used for a long time since it is easy to remember.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Best battleship of World War 1?.....

Best battleship of World War 1?.....