Best Designed Ship of WWII

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Well with 3 or 4 you dont know if that was overkill since it sunk, but as always it depends where it hit. Like when someone says that Yamato needed to get 10, maybe 4 or 5 that it took were enough to send it to the bottom.

Actually we know from crew accounts and analysis that the other torpedo hits did not seriously damage the ship. Exact placement of the hit is important. One theory is that direct hits on the armor belt helped absorb the blast. The interesting point however is that it seems miraculous that all of them might have done so save for the one lucky hit that caused the heavy damage to the steering gear. We don't know for sure but thats the running theory. The affected areas could not be fully examined by Ballard's expidition.

Yes but in unarmored places the hole would always be big if the detonation of torpedo is correct. The size of it 15m is 10m less than the distance between auxiliary rudder pair and main rudder.

The size of the holes, and the substantial flooding it caused with the concurrent change in trim, especially to the bow plane was very serious and demonstrates how far damage can reach....and thats just the direct physical damage. Shock and flooding damages can reach still further. You are free to dismiss it by blaming the crew. In fairness though, since Bismarck's steering arragements receive much scrutiny because of the one hit, its just as fair to consider Littorio's 3 torpedo hits and how it would have impacted her survival had she been in Bismarck's place in the stormy Atlantic that fateful day.

Well the torpedo hit there what do you expected?

The designers expected the Pugliese TBD system to absorb most if not all of the blast. There's design theory, and then there's real life. It doesn't always work out the way the designers want or expect.

That might be a misunstanding, to find a design flow we have to check all ambient variables and if that design flow it is more or less contant constant trough them. In this case Bismarck is in much more trouble than Littorio from flat Sea State to heavy Sea State.

Its not a misunderstanding. To fully appreciate the situation Luthjens and company faced you have to take into account the situation they and the ship were in. Littorio's more dispersed steering arrangement does indeed make her LESS suspectible to being fully disabled by such a hit. However what you can't say, and from which point i have been arguing, is that a full or mortal disablement would never occur, more so if more than one torpedo had struck home in other areas. In such a state as Bismarck were in, Littorio's aux steering system, assuming it wasn't disabled by shock and flood damage might not have overcome the sea state, more so were she down heavily by the bow as with what occured at Taranto. Thats the danger of making absolute statements based on one incident. Yet you choose to dismiss Littorio's poor preformance at Tarnato and blame it on the crew, but in Bismarck's case the disablement of her steering and the inability of the crew to repair it or jury rig the system because of outside variables warrents a label of "Design Flaw" on the class as a whole (though I note not in Gazarke despite specific attn to this subject.)

Littorio auxiliary rudders were used for comon maneuvering too. The ship used the 3 rudders to operate when necessary. Maybe that is why it escaped many aerial torpedo attacks.

Had she had a more traditional two rudder arrangement like most other BB's she might have avoided the torpedoes that did hit home knocking them out of service. Design Flaw? no......Design choice....same as with Bismarck, or North Carolina for that matter.

Yes a catastrophic damage but less chance of it or more chance of damage but less critical.
There is no way around physics. You can see the damage that Torpedos do in image i posted. The area at rear is also a more dificult place to detonate do to curvature.

I believe I have stated, several times now, that Littorio's designers did reduce the risk to the ship to this specific type of disablement at cost to other design areas. I disagree, and stand by my statements that one cannot claim such damage CANNOT happen to a certain class of battleship.

[hawker]

The size of the holes, and the substantial flooding it caused with the concurrent change in trim, especially to the bow plane was very serious and demonstrates how far damage can reach....and thats just the direct physical damage. Shock and flooding damages can reach still further. You are free to dismiss it by blaming the crew. In fairness though, since Bismarck's steering arragements receive much scrutiny because of the one hit, its just as fair to consider Littorio's 3 torpedo hits and how it would have impacted her survival had she been in Bismarck's place in the stormy Atlantic that fateful day.

Well,switch Littorio for Bismarck. Littorio would be sunk at Danemark strait by Hood and PoW[;)]
Hood and PoW would be without scratch probably because Littorios could hardly hit anything at sea.
Probably most uneficient ships of WW2[;)]

One opposite example,put Bismarck at Matapan instead of Vittorio Veneto and Italians would won the day[;)]
That english cruisers which approach VV to less then 20000 yards would now be at the bottom of Mediteranian sea

And yes,Littorio has better steering gear[8D]

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo

I'd have to agree with the guys who mentioned the Liberty/Victory class ships. These are the ships that won the war. End of story. Everything else is just group masturbation. They met and exceeded their designed role better than any other class of ship built, by any nationality.

At the risk of sparking an arguement:
I'm not so sure. Just because they won the war, does not make them a good design... The method and speed of construction is what made them so useful rather than their design itself.

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: hawker

One opposite example,put Bismarck at Matapan instead of Vittorio Veneto and Italians would won the day[;)]
That english cruisers which approach VV to less then 20000 yards would now be at the bottom of Mediteranian sea

Of course they would [:'(] Because Bismarck was the most brilliant ship ever built.... Somehow I doubt that the battle would have changed.

[mikemike]

ORIGINAL: Prince

Yep, but what were they good for? Raiding? When even the Battleships weren`t allowed to attack convoys escortet by a single obsolete british BB?

They where CLs, not of any use for a power in geographical disadvantage, being clever designed, being good looking, but not of any Use. As the BBs a clear show that germans Admirals didn`t learn from WWI. Challenging the Brits, they had two Options, building a fleet to blast the brits away (could be done with short ranged BBs to open a landing path) or cutting their supplys (Raiders or better U-Boats) but Cls were useless, except for training crews.

What most people who so fervently dump on the Reichsmarine ships fail to consider is the circumstances under which those ships were designed and built. The Versailles Treaty was designed to open up Germany to any military adventure the Allies, and especially France (and later Poland) might be tempted to undertake. The absolute number one task for the Reichsmarine was to protect the German coasts from enemy naval forces, especially in the Baltic, where all coastal defence installations had had to be dismantled. You probably know what ships Germany had left - nothing completed after 1908 except a number of torpedo boats which had already been found inadequate in 1915. Those ships were generally of so little military value and in such a decrepit state that they had been relegated to secondary duties in WWI - some serving as barracks ships. New construction was absolutely essential, and, with only six cruisers allowed, those ships had to have the maximum of firepower that could be extracted from the very restrictive displacement allowed. It's a pity that, with the CLs, the designers overreached themselves, but the basic layout would have produced very useful ships had the designers had an additional 1500 tons of displacement to play with. Ironically, the only really sound German cruiser was Emden, which had an obsolete layout and was too slow, but would have been effective in WWII - half of the RN CL's were no more modern. Until maybe 1937, the expected enemy in all planning was France, against which the Reichsmarine might well have conducted a useful trade war before the French Navy began to receive really modern ships.

[hawker]

ORIGINAL: Dixie

ORIGINAL: hawker

One opposite example,put Bismarck at Matapan instead of Vittorio Veneto and Italians would won the day[;)]
That english cruisers which approach VV to less then 20000 yards would now be at the bottom of Mediteranian sea

Of course they would [:'(] Because Bismarck was the most brilliant ship ever built.... Somehow I doubt that the battle would have changed.

Nobody says that Bismarck is best ever ship.
Most famous,yes
Best,no sir

But Littorios are far worse
Those ships never hit anything[;)]
And they had a chance
I must admitt these ships are beautiful,but unefficent. Good for "X" bomb training and for scrapping.

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: mikemike

ORIGINAL: Prince

Yep, but what were they good for? Raiding? When even the Battleships weren`t allowed to attack convoys escortet by a single obsolete british BB?

They where CLs, not of any use for a power in geographical disadvantage, being clever designed, being good looking, but not of any Use. As the BBs a clear show that germans Admirals didn`t learn from WWI. Challenging the Brits, they had two Options, building a fleet to blast the brits away (could be done with short ranged BBs to open a landing path) or cutting their supplys (Raiders or better U-Boats) but Cls were useless, except for training crews.

What most people who so fervently dump on the Reichsmarine ships fail to consider is the circumstances under which those ships were designed and built. The Versailles Treaty was designed to open up Germany to any military adventure the Allies, and especially France (and later Poland) might be tempted to undertake. The absolute number one task for the Reichsmarine was to protect the German coasts from enemy naval forces, especially in the Baltic, where all coastal defence installations had had to be dismantled. You probably know what ships Germany had left - nothing completed after 1908 except a number of torpedo boats which had already been found inadequate in 1915. Those ships were generally of so little military value and in such a decrepit state that they had been relegated to secondary duties in WWI - some serving as barracks ships. New construction was absolutely essential, and, with only six cruisers allowed, those ships had to have the maximum of firepower that could be extracted from the very restrictive displacement allowed. It's a pity that, with the CLs, the designers overreached themselves, but the basic layout would have produced very useful ships had the designers had an additional 1500 tons of displacement to play with. Ironically, the only really sound German cruiser was Emden, which had an obsolete layout and was too slow, but would have been effective in WWII - half of the RN CL's were no more modern. Until maybe 1937, the expected enemy in all planning was France, against which the Reichsmarine might well have conducted a useful trade war before the French Navy began to receive really modern ships.

Indeed!

A design can only be commented and evaluated while regarding it's intended use and the circumstances of it's construction!


How could a Deutschland-Klasse Panzerschiff ever be compared with i.e. a Japanese CA like the Mogami?
Or how could you compare a german Treaty-CL (Versailles!!!) with a Washington-CL or even a non-Washington CL?

The question should be: Is the design the best possible or how good is the design regarding the circumstances of restrictions and doctrine it's construction affected?

T said: The H-class was bad, because they had Torpedotubes under the water, something that other navies had stopped to build - and even "modernized away" since years or even decades. But can this be an argument? The H-Klass was no battleline BB. The H-Klasse was designed to penetrate deep into the enemy's convoi routs with it's 19.000 miles range. The best against an AK, AP or TK is a torpedo, as it's underwaterprotection is (nearly) non existant and as the H-Klasse can risk to get close enough to use the torps. Why should the H-Klasse use it's big guns against merchants, especially as ammunition is limited and armour piercing shells are very ineffective against unarmoured targets?

The same with the german cruisers and the Panzerschiffe. You have to consider why they have been built as they were.

The only fair comparison can be between ships constructed with similar conditions, like Washington 35.000 tons BBs - and even then not without regarding the date. A 1935 CL can hardly be compared with a 1944 CL.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: hawker


Well,switch Littorio for Bismarck. Littorio would be sunk at Danemark strait by Hood and PoW[;)]
Hood and PoW would be without scratch probably because Littorios could hardly hit anything at sea.
Probably most uneficient ships of WW2[;)]

The Italians produced the most impressive 15inch gun in terms of sheer penetration for WWII but it did come with a price of excessive barrel wear due to the very high muzzle veocity. This also limited barrell life and degraded accuracy over time. There were also issues with shell dispersal as well. There's nothing to say however that the class couldn't have duplicated Bismarck's feat. It only takes one good hit and the ship was powerful enough to do it. PoW might have gotten off lighter though but would probably still have withdrawn given the problems the unworked up ship had with it's own guns and the need to preserve fighting power for better odds.

[juliet7bravo]

ORIGINAL: Dixie

At the risk of sparking an arguement:
I'm not so sure. Just because they won the war, does not make them a good design... The method and speed of construction is what made them so useful rather than their design itself.

What makes a "good" design?

Form (or in this case design) follows function. All ships designs involve tradeoffs to maximise performance to perform this or that function. A destroyer, for example, gives up (some) seakeeping/weatherlyness (is that a word?) in order to maximise speed and to pack as many weapons into as small a package as possible. The success for this or that class/type ship is how well the various tradeoffs "work" together to meet their intended function. Sometimes the designers got it right...others, they got it wrong. Look at the Graf Spee...too slow to run, too big to hide, and main guns that both too big, and too small.

Some ships were considered successful designs because their original design was flexible enough to allow them to be modified to perform additional or other tasks.

In the case of the Liberty/Victory ships, they were intentionally designed for cheap mass production (maximising the use of unskilled labor) in minimal time, using tools, hardware, and components readily available or fabricated. To meet the design requirements they gave up alot of desirable or "good" points. They were designed to have a relatively short lifespan, easy cargo handling, decent seaworthyness, and carry lots (and lots) of cargo. They delivered one cargo...they'd met their designed goal. Anything else was gravy. Being a "good" peacetime type cargo ship wasn't something they were designed for...though these ships were often still carrying cargo long, long after the war was over. In meeting their designed function, these were probably the most successful ships of WW2...

For that matter...I'd suspect that the LST would also be in the running for "best designed ship of WW2". Why even include BBs? For the most part, they were designed (however good or bad) for a task that no longer existed.

[LowCommand]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned Liberty ships. Without the supporting echelons armies are only so many ill-fed men without bullets after no more than 4 or 5 days of combat ( often less ).





True enough, but they were not particularly well-designed ships: notably, they tended to break in half without warning (and sink)... after several occurrences of this, the design was reinforced, but they continued to have serious problems with structural cracks threatening catastrophic failure.

The cracking problem was not primarily a design problem, it was materials. Only the welded ships did it, and only the ones from some shipyards. The T2 tankers had the same problem. It was eventually traced to poor low temperature notch toughness of the steel used. The problem wasn't helped by nice sharp square corners on the main hatches though.

On the gripping paw, they had enough design problems. The first was the reciprocating machinery, selected because of a reduction gear cutting machinery shortage. They also were not very well sub-divided for a ship intended to go near combat. For example they had a combined engine room-fire room. Also, in my opinion, it would have been very nice if they had been given two boilers, engines, etc. Still that would probably have been way too expensive (in terms of steel, man hours, etc.) for an expendable ship. They had other problems, like poor bridge layout (they were often conned entirely from the exposed top position.) Then there was the problem that the crews were not always, er, as disciplined as they might have been. A number of Liberties were lost due to failure to keep the shaft tunnel hatch shut.

Bottom line, they were way more than good enough, there were lots and lots of them and they were far more important to winning the war than most Any other class of ships.

The possible exception was the LST's. Again, The (American) Large Slow Targets were less than wonderfully designed. In the early ones, the elevator was a vulnerable point, they were only good for a few assault landings, they were hard for a green crew to keep running, etc. Still, they were a a war winning weapon. As part of the "Green Mile" puts it: The entire strategy of the Allies was dependent on and governed by our ability to move men and materials over the seas into combat. Nowhere was there a more critical shortage than assault shipping. As just one example, the closest to a fist fight the Combined General Staff ever came, was over two LST's. Ironically, the US 'won' the fight and they rushed from the CBI for D Day. They got there just in time to get an overhaul and go back.

As a note, most historian's and Eisenhower, came up with a list of "The" weapons that won WWII. It usually runs something like:
LST
Liberty
DUWK
Duce and a half
Bulldozer
C47
M1 Rifle

Note that only the M1 is normally considered a weapon.

[mikemike]

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo

Sometimes the designers got it right...others, they got it wrong. Look at the Graf Spee...too slow to run, too big to hide, and main guns that both too big, and too small.

Too facile a condemnation of the Panzerschiffe. Remember that the basic concept was from about 1926. These ships had to be the German Battle Line and as such were replacements for the "Deutschland" and "Hannover" class pre-dreadnoughts - but limited to an even lower displacement (10k tons - the pre-dreadnoughts were about 13,5k). The only gun caliber the allied Control Commission would have allowed for these ships was 280 mm (I think there is a paragraph in the Versailles Treaty that stated how many guns of which calibers the German Navy was allowed to own, and at the upper end that meant 150 mm, 170 mm, and 280 mm - nothing else). Now you have 1926 technology to work with - pray tell me what the right compromise would have looked like in your opinion. At least the Panzerschiffe were aimed squarely at a capability gap the French Navy - the only conceivable enemy in 1926 - had at the time: the only ships able to stand up to 280 mm guns were far too slow to catch them. Any heavy ships built in France and Germany after that were part of a private arms race between those two navies - reaction and counter-reaction: Deutschland - Dunkerque - Scharnhorst - Strasbourg - Richelieu - Bismarck - Clemenceau.

[Tiornu]

Remember that the basic concept was from about 1926.

In the days when France had only one aircraft carrier and no radar, the armored ships were a fine design. In my opinion, subsequent German fleet units went downhill from there.

The H-Klass was no battleline BB.

That's an excellent depiction of German design confusion--a ship-of-the-battle-line not meant for the line of battle.

Why should the H-Klasse use it's big guns against merchants, especially as ammunition is limited and armour piercing shells are very ineffective against unarmoured targets?

Did Scharnhorst and Gneisenau have any success against merchant shipping despite having no torpedoes?

What most people who so fervently dump on the Reichsmarine ships fail to consider is the circumstances under which those ships were designed and built.

Strangely, that description would also fit most of the people who designed Germany's ships.

[juliet7bravo]

ORIGINAL: mikemike

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo

Sometimes the designers got it right...others, they got it wrong. Look at the Graf Spee...too slow to run, too big to hide, and main guns that both too big, and too small.

Too facile a condemnation of the Panzerschiffe. Remember that the basic concept was from about 1926. These ships had to be the German Battle Line and as such were replacements for the "Deutschland" and "Hannover" class pre-dreadnoughts - but limited to an even lower displacement (10k tons - the pre-dreadnoughts were about 13,5k). The only gun caliber the allied Control Commission would have allowed for these ships was 280 mm (I think there is a paragraph in the Versailles Treaty that stated how many guns of which calibers the German Navy was allowed to own, and at the upper end that meant 150 mm, 170 mm, and 280 mm - nothing else). Now you have 1926 technology to work with - pray tell me what the right compromise would have looked like in your opinion. At least the Panzerschiffe were aimed squarely at a capability gap the French Navy - the only conceivable enemy in 1926 - had at the time: the only ships able to stand up to 280 mm guns were far too slow to catch them. Any heavy ships built in France and Germany after that were part of a private arms race between those two navies - reaction and counter-reaction: Deutschland - Dunkerque - Scharnhorst - Strasbourg - Richelieu - Bismarck - Clemenceau.

What, is it your contention these were somehow successful ship designs? Heck, for that matter, they may have been wildly successful 1926 ship designs...but, hot news flash; The war wasn't fought in 1926. By the time the war rolled around they were expensive showcases for "Poor Design Choices 'R Us".

"pray tell me what the right compromise would have looked like in your opinion"

Shelving my plans for world domination until the navy was ready to play...meanwhile, building well designed ships that met treaty requirement until I was ready to ignore the treaty. Not build poorly designed "show ships" to highlite Germany's growing military power and play "Keep up with the Jones". But they were photogenic as heck, and really impressive on paper...must count for something.

[Hornblower]

Fletcher's or the Essex.. And the Shokaku's..  or, this is out there, the Flower class corvettes..

[Gem35]

HB, post something quick, 666 posts is not a good number.[;)]

[Hornblower]

Avoiding the Omen post...  [:'(]

[Dili]

The size of the holes, and the substantial flooding it caused with the concurrent change in trim, especially to the bow plane was very serious and demonstrates how far damage can reach....and thats just the direct physical damage. Shock and flooding damages can reach still further. You are free to dismiss it by blaming the crew. In fairness though, since Bismarck's steering arragements receive much scrutiny because of the one hit, its just as fair to consider Littorio's 3 torpedo hits and how it would have impacted her survival had she been in Bismarck's place in the stormy Atlantic that fateful day.

The size of the holes is mostly the same(for similar effective detonations) in all similar ships since the outside hull is always weak, what matters is what is behind it or not and if it can stop the water.
I dont dismiss the crew, italian High Command did, they were retrained and were reorganized(Source: Orizzonte Mare,Corazatte Vittorio Veneto Vol.2, pag.15), also it is my bias that a ship looses efficiency when in Harbour. For example Vailant and Queen Elizabeth might have not been sunk in Alexandria if the explosion would have occured at sea. Note that in image i have linked(for some reason the forum didnt let me upload yesterday) you can see in all images how the ships went in the water after those hits.

The designers expected the Pugliese TBD system to absorb most if not all of the blast. There's design theory, and then there's real life. It doesn't always work out the way the designers want or expect.

In Taranto only one hit was in Pugliese system, the hit below A turret while there the Pugliese system is already in minor size. To make any judgement we would need information we dont have: how much water went there.

Its not a misunderstanding. To fully appreciate the situation Luthjens and company faced you have to take into account the situation they and the ship were in. Littorio's more dispersed steering arrangement does indeed make her LESS suspectible to being fully disabled by such a hit. However what you can't say, and from which point i have been arguing, is that a full or mortal disablement would never occur, more so if more than one torpedo had struck home in other areas. In such a state as Bismarck were in, Littorio's aux steering system, assuming it wasn't disabled by shock and flood damage might not have overcome the sea state, more so were she down heavily by the bow as with what occured at Taranto. Thats the danger of making absolute statements based on one incident. Yet you choose to dismiss Littorio's poor preformance at Tarnato and blame it on the crew, but in Bismarck's case the disablement of her steering and the inability of the crew to repair it or jury rig the system because of outside variables warrents a label of "Design Flaw" on the class as a whole (though I note not in Gazarke despite specific attn to this subject.)

I compare hits in same place and try to extrapolate what might have happen. If you want to compare put Bismarck in Taranto and let it receive hits in same places, we might not reach any conclusion but that is the proper way to do it.
Second:HMS Nelson is evidence that steering with engines only is no problem (and not even including auxiliary rudders), due to enemy attacks(U-56 one of them a torpedo that didnt detonated but stuck the rudder, or just because the fragile thing broke and had some times to resort to propeller only steering.

Had she had a more traditional two rudder arrangement like most other BB's she might have avoided the torpedoes that did hit home knocking them out of service. Design Flaw? no......Design choice....same as with Bismarck, or North Carolina for that matter.

Strange reference since Bismarck rudder size was tiny and was only one...(post edit: i was wrong they were two small ones).
Littorios were known as very maneuverable. The auxiliary rudders were almost like another rudder 38m2 Vs 32m2. Also as i have said i dont think a design flaw is something that have clear trade offs and that they seem sensible even if i favour other option.

Lieutenant Battersby of the Royal Navy from HMS Howe:

I was much impressed by the Vittorio Veneto’s zig-zagging. That of the Italia was not as good.

(Note:Italia=ex:Littorio have been hit by a PC-1400X German bomb and another one hit the sea very close.)

http://www.regiamarina.net/others/vitto ... son_us.htm

One opposite example,put Bismarck at Matapan instead of Vittorio Veneto and Italians would won the day
That english cruisers which approach VV to less then 20000 yards would now be at the bottom of Mediteranian sea

Well that is not what british tought running away making smoke. In DS Littorio would have one more tube, it would not make damage to herself like some BB's and the drill errors were acceptable with a 10% rate and never that i know of a gun ended stopped in all engagements. Nikademus is right that wear was much more than with comparable guns, tough the tube could be relined with the gun in place and there were issues with diferent batches of amno some making longitudinal dispersion much bigger than should be.


http://cas.awm.gov.au/photograph/P01915.019

Matapan, Greece. c. 1941. 15 inch shells exploding in the water between HMS Gloucester and HMAS Perth. Seen from HMS Gloucester during the battle of Matapan in the Ionian Sea.

While it has be my point - that closed placed steering/propelers increased the risk to level that i call a design flaw- this while differnt is also interesting:

We believe that part of the stern collapsed onto the rudders, as happened with the Prinz Eugen and armored cruiser Lützow, or was damaged in such a way that it was impossible to steer the ship by either manual or mechanical means. It would have been necessary to cut away structure which was covered by surging water. In any event, the repair of such damage was beyond the capability and material provided aboard the Bismarck, even if weather and battle conditions had been more favorable. The stern structure was massively damaged and eventually failed.

There is remarkable similarity between the Bismarck damage and a similar torpedo hit on the stern of Prinz Eugen on 23 February 1942. Dr. Erwin Strohbusch, who directed the repairs of this heavy cruiser in Norway, wrote to us that this incident, and an earlier one on the armored cruiser Lützow, whose stern also collapsed from a torpedo hit, indicated a structural flaw in the stern design of German armored ships, heavy cruisers, battleships, and battlecruisers. Improvements were made to the stern structures of Admiral Hipper, Lützow, Tirpitz, Admiral Scheer and Scharnhorst during 1942-1943.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_Bismarck_p2.htm

[Historiker]

quote:

The H-Klass was no battleline BB.


That's an excellent depiction of German design confusion--a ship-of-the-battle-line not meant for the line of battle.

The H-class may have been (if it were built) a waste of ressources, but the design ment it was both: A commerce raider and - if needed - a ship for the battle line.

The Z-Plan was the plan against Britain. When it was designed, Britain already had 15 (?) Battleships while Germany just had four, of which two weren't the right to fight against the British ones.
It's irrealistic to believe, you could get a stronger battleline within the next twenty years, when the enemy starts with such a numeric superiority. Even after the Drednought, which lets all navies start at zero, this wasn't acchieved.
So what could you do?

With H-Klasse BBs, you have superior commerce raiders. They have a strong to superior armement with heavy armour and an amazing range (They might run through the denmark straight down to the Rio de la plata and back with a 20% backup for battle). But as they are stronger than any of Britains (old) BBs, they can attack even protected convois were they find them.

It doesn't make sense to build a battle line if you have just 20-30% of the enemy's ships, but with two or three H-Klasse sailing together, no enemy convoi can ever be save, as the enemy doesn't now where and if they'll strike and consequently can never protect his convois enough.

I'm neither a ship designer nor a real expert in this profession, but IMO, the H-Klasse would have been the absolutly right thing for the described mission. In combination with weaker armed BCs and the new P-class, they might have caused real problems (in times where radar wasn't known and the threat from carrier bourne planes wasn't recognized, yet).

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

quote:

The H-Klass was no battleline BB.


That's an excellent depiction of German design confusion--a ship-of-the-battle-line not meant for the line of battle.

The H-class may have been (if it were built) a waste of ressources, but the design ment it was both: A commerce raider and - if needed - a ship for the battle line.

The Z-Plan was the plan against Britain. When it was designed, Britain already had 15 (?) Battleships while Germany just had four, of which two weren't the right to fight against the British ones.
It's irrealistic to believe, you could get a stronger battleline within the next twenty years, when the enemy starts with such a numeric superiority. Even after the Drednought, which lets all navies start at zero, this wasn't acchieved.
So what could you do?

With H-Klasse BBs, you have superior commerce raiders. They have a strong to superior armement with heavy armour and an amazing range (They might run through the denmark straight down to the Rio de la plata and back with a 20% backup for battle). But as they are stronger than any of Britains (old) BBs, they can attack even protected convois were they find them.

It doesn't make sense to build a battle line if you have just 20-30% of the enemy's ships, but with two or three H-Klasse sailing together, no enemy convoi can ever be save, as the enemy doesn't now where and if they'll strike and consequently can never protect his convois enough.

I'm neither a ship designer nor a real expert in this profession, but IMO, the H-Klasse would have been the absolutly right thing for the described mission. In combination with weaker armed BCs and the new P-class, they might have caused real problems (in times where radar wasn't known and the threat from carrier bourne planes wasn't recognized, yet).

To give you an idea of the problem the KM had working out sane missions for its ships, the design mission of the Prinz Eugen and its sisters was to attack French troop convoys in the Mediterranean.

[wernerpruckner]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

quote:

The H-Klass was no battleline BB.


That's an excellent depiction of German design confusion--a ship-of-the-battle-line not meant for the line of battle.

The H-class may have been (if it were built) a waste of ressources, but the design ment it was both: A commerce raider and - if needed - a ship for the battle line.

The Z-Plan was the plan against Britain. When it was designed, Britain already had 15 (?) Battleships while Germany just had four, of which two weren't the right to fight against the British ones.
It's irrealistic to believe, you could get a stronger battleline within the next twenty years, when the enemy starts with such a numeric superiority. Even after the Drednought, which lets all navies start at zero, this wasn't acchieved.
So what could you do?

With H-Klasse BBs, you have superior commerce raiders. They have a strong to superior armement with heavy armour and an amazing range (They might run through the denmark straight down to the Rio de la plata and back with a 20% backup for battle). But as they are stronger than any of Britains (old) BBs, they can attack even protected convois were they find them.

It doesn't make sense to build a battle line if you have just 20-30% of the enemy's ships, but with two or three H-Klasse sailing together, no enemy convoi can ever be save, as the enemy doesn't now where and if they'll strike and consequently can never protect his convois enough.

I'm neither a ship designer nor a real expert in this profession, but IMO, the H-Klasse would have been the absolutly right thing for the described mission. In combination with weaker armed BCs and the new P-class, they might have caused real problems (in times where radar wasn't known and the threat from carrier bourne planes wasn't recognized, yet).

blubb blubb blubb
and three BBs would have been gone