Best Designed Ship of WWII

[DuckofTindalos]

This is true, but as Robert pointed out, they were structurally unsound.

[Nikademus]

as with everything else....it depends on your interpretation of specific criteria.

The Liberty as a static "design", compared ship for ship might fall short due to early flaws.....but in terms of "filling a need", it was tops. The Allies needed numbers and the Liberty concept fillfilled that need.

The Type XXI was a revolutionary design in many ways from a technical standpoint. From a practical standpoint, it was less spectacular because it demanded too much of a collapsing industrial base.

[Dili]

There's a difference between getting a torp in the rudder and one shell taking out half of the main armement - but well...

Bismarck was a very flawed design, in image below you can compare the proppeller/rudder arrangement of Bismarck vs Littorio,Vittorio Veneto Class and reach the conclusion in what ship one single hit can have disastrous consequences. Bismark had the 3 propellers in almost same place and didnt had secundary rudders.

[Nikademus]

any ship that takes a hit in the rear is going to have serious difficulties. Have to agree with Tiornu in that I don't see Bismarck's props/Steering gear as a serious design flaw. KVG rear area wasn't weakly designed and one torpedo created a havoc that directly led to the ship's demise. Protection of the "ends" was one of the great problems that battleship designers were never able to fully solve in the age of aviation. One reason they became eclipsed.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Dili

There's a difference between getting a torp in the rudder and one shell taking out half of the main armement - but well...

Bismarck was a very flawed design, in image below you can compare the proppeller/rudder arrangement of Bismarck vs Littorio,Vittorio Veneto Class and reach the conclusion in what ship one single hit can have disastrous consequences. Bismark had the 3 propellers in almost same place and didnt had secundary rudders.

One might point out that one 16" shell from Nelson took out both forward turrets of the Bismarck during her final battle - destroying one turret and jamming the other in train. So twice as many turrets does not guarantee that one shell won't take out half your main armament won't happen.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

any ship that takes a hit in the rear is going to have serious difficulties. Have to agree with Tiornu in that I don't see Bismarck's props/Steering gear as a serious design flaw. KVG rear area wasn't weakly designed and one torpedo created a havoc that directly led to the ship's demise. Protection of the "ends" was one of the great problems that battleship designers were never able to fully solve in the age of aviation. One reason they became eclipsed.

True - but wouldn't a truly great design have attempted to rectify the problem with the Achilles heel? Since we are discussing "best designed" ship, i'd expect better attention to a serious potential problem.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

True - but wouldn't a truly great design have attempted to rectify the problem with the Achilles heel? Since we are discussing "best designed" ship, i'd expect better attention to a serious potential problem.

Thats the point....I don't believe it was possible to rectify it to any serious degree. Secondary rudders sound great but didn't prove to work very well if the main rudder went out or worse, was jammed. Four screws, well seperated is no gurantee. PoW suffered damage to both her facing props from the one torp hit due to the amplified shock effect of the close blast underwater. TDS systems can't get the width to make any meaningful contribution in those areas. Would another class, in those Atlantic swells have preformed any better under similar conditions..and enough to escape two pursuing and fully intact BB's?

[Nixuebrig]

Problem with the Bismarck was the armor distribution. It was taken from the WWI Designs without taking into account the changes in warfare (Torpedoes etc.) .

Of course, that doesn`t mean she was a bad ship, but she wasn`t an excellent design. And, remember that, she and the Tipitz, were both Prototypes for the following 56.000ts BBs which were planned to be build in the Z-Plan.

And taking a different approach, all german Ships bigger than destroyers in WWII were not a clever design, simply because they took ressources away from the U-Boats which would have a far greater effect Ok, but that hasn`t much to do with the design of the Bismarck herself.

[DuckofTindalos]

The H-Battleships were not good designs either, but probably somewhat better than the Bismark. They incorporated underwater torpedo tubes, for one thing, something that ALL other navies in the world had dispensed with at this time. Their aircraft facilities were misplaced as well.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

True - but wouldn't a truly great design have attempted to rectify the problem with the Achilles heel? Since we are discussing "best designed" ship, i'd expect better attention to a serious potential problem.

Thats the point....I don't believe it was possible to rectify it to any serious degree. Secondary rudders sound great but didn't prove to work very well if the main rudder went out or worse, was jammed. Four screws, well seperated is no gurantee. PoW suffered damage to both her facing props from the one torp hit due to the amplified shock effect of the close blast underwater. TDS systems can't get the width to make any meaningful contribution in those areas. Would another class, in those Atlantic swells have preformed any better under similar conditions..and enough to escape two pursuing and fully intact BB's?

There are of course no guarantees in the course of a battle, but you can do things to improve your odds... i think there was a lot of room for improvement in this instance in the design, and it was known from at least the time of her trials that Bismarck was (shall we say) "deficient" in being able to be steered by engines alone...

iirc, there were concerns expressed during the design phase as well about rudder and screw arrangements, but it's been some years since i've made a study of the ship. (in my distant youth, i originally was of the opinion it was the "best of the best" but research into the matter has changed my opinion.)

Other problems with the design not mentioned (so far, afaik):

- outmoded secondary/tertiary gun arrangement
- overly complex/delicate fire control mechanisms for AA batteries (that didn't work, possibly due to mismatch of the controller to the types of guns used (we did a thread about this a year or more back))

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The H-Battleships were not good designs either, but probably somewhat better than the Bismark. They incorporated underwater torpedo tubes, for one thing, something that ALL other navies in the world had dispensed with at this time. Their aircraft facilities were misplaced as well.

Which is sign of total misunderstand of the intended use for the ship...

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Prince

Problem with the Bismarck was the armor distribution. It was taken from the WWI Designs without taking into account the changes in warfare (Torpedoes etc.) .

Well she was designed, like her prior bretheren mainly for fighting in the more restricted conditions of the North Sea (and to a lesser degree, the Atlantic) where ranges would tend to be more limited. With that in mind the weight of her protection was faced to the vertical and in that area she was very stoutly protected. Thats because her primary armor deck sloped behind the primary armor belt providing additional protection against veritical strikes. It made a penetration into the vitals from that quarter very difficult and unlikely at the expected battle ranges. (Tironu can correct me but Nathan Okun once said it was virtually impossible) She did prove hard to sink in the end though as with any BB or ship. Soft-kill disablement could still be acomplished quickly enough if the battering is severe. Her deck protection can be faulted though to be fair.....if any ship is hit by a TallBoy.....its going to be penetrated in most cases if not all. Even if detonated prior to penetration of the main armor deck, its not nice to have an Earthquake bomb detonate within a warship. Messy. [:D]

[Dili]

I am sorry but i dont understand why only contrast presented is "Garantee" Vs "flawed". There is no garantees or perfect solutions like everyone knows but there many degrees towards it.

One might point out that one 16" shell from Nelson took out both forward turrets of the Bismarck during her final battle - destroying one turret and jamming the other in train. So twice as many turrets does not guarantee that one shell won't take out half your main armament won't happen.

And?. What is the size of the area where that problems can happen?

I don't believe it was possible to rectify it to any serious degree. Secondary rudders sound great but didn't prove to work very well if the main rudder went out or worse, was jammed. Four screws, well seperated is no gurantee.

Well main rudder jammed when there is secundary rudders is easy it is just dropping the jammed rudder (i know the might not work in some situations like i said there are no certainities), but Bismark wasnt not even designed with that.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Dili
Well main rudder jammed when there is secundary rudders is easy it is just dropping the jammed rudder (i know the might not work in some situations like i said there are no certainities), but Bismark wasnt not even designed with that.

They wanted too. That was part of the problem. Sea conditions prevented divers from going overboard and blowing away the debris that was jaming the main rudder. Had they been able to clear the debris.....they might have gotten enough steering back to keep from a steadier course.

[Dili]

That is a different issue, it is not dropping the rudder to the bottom of ocean. Bismarck could not do that because she will be without any rudder, and her propeller arrangement was flawed to do the steering.

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Dili
Well main rudder jammed when there is secundary rudders is easy it is just dropping the jammed rudder (i know the might not work in some situations like i said there are no certainities), but Bismark wasnt not even designed with that.

They wanted too. That was part of the problem. Sea conditions prevented divers from going overboard and blowing away the debris that was jaming the main rudder. Had they been able to clear the debris.....they might have gotten enough steering back to keep from a steadier course.

There were divers in the water but they tried to repair it - not to drop it or blast it.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Dili

That is a different issue, it is not dropping the rudder to the bottom of ocean. Bismarck could not do that because she will be without any rudder, and her propeller arrangement was flawed to do the steering.

It wasn't necessarily an attempt to blow off the rudder but to free it. And i've not seen anything conclusive that suggests that any ship under those conditions would have had adequate control without a main rudder under those sea conditions. I thus, don't think her screw arrangement was a *major* flaw.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Dili
Well main rudder jammed when there is secundary rudders is easy it is just dropping the jammed rudder (i know the might not work in some situations like i said there are no certainities), but Bismark wasnt not even designed with that.

They wanted too. That was part of the problem. Sea conditions prevented divers from going overboard and blowing away the debris that was jaming the main rudder. Had they been able to clear the debris.....they might have gotten enough steering back to keep from a steadier course.

There were divers in the water but they tried to repair it - not to drop it or blast it.

i've read in a couple of places they tried to place charges to blow off the rudder, but conditions were such that they could not do so.

[Dili]

As you can see KGV was also flawed. With much more concentrated back end where propellers mix with rudder and one propeller is side by side with the other one so there is not advantage in KGV if a hit goes there. That doesnt happen with Littorio/Vittorio Veneto.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The I-400 was a horrible waste of time and resources. The aircraft-carrying submarine was a cul-de-sac in submarine design, and the I-400 was the worst of the bunch. Huge, lumbering and ungainly, and only capable of carrying 3 aircraft, even though it was meant to be capable of strike operations. Just awful.

The Shimakaze was probably too fast to be useful. I'd nominate the Akitsukis instead.

As for the Brooklyns, those would get my vote too, even though they were Treaty cruisers.

The British carriers get lots of praise for their armour, but they were critically deficient in the one thing that aircraft carriers have to be able to do (carry aircraft). I like the Essex better.

He didn't ask what we thought were the best all around, rather what we thought was one of three. I will state my reasoning.

I-400: Far ahead of its time in concept. While the actual production models might have been unmitigated disasters, the general idea behind it was brilliant. It made transporting of aircraft using stealth possible. Imagine an airstrike appearing out of nowhere, and how do you defend against it when the enemy can strike in your rear areas?

Shimakaze: Wrong ship at the time. But no one can deny it was a very good design for its intended use. Sure a few more Akitzuki's would have been a better deal, but the design of Shimakaze was in no way flawed, only built about 20 years too late.

British Carriers: Again, those heavily armored flight decks were revolutionary at the time. While it limited the ships in other ways, it did allow those ships to remain operational and able to launch aircraft in situations where other carriers would be badly damamged. Not to mention that the armored flight decks were much less likely to catch on fire.

True innovation doesn't come often though. BBs were last truly innovative with the launch of HMS Dreadnaught. Most designs have simply been a variation since then. Such is the way with ships, you rarely have a wholescale jump in design improvement, but rather a whole bunch of smaller improvements over time.