Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Iridium

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Carriers: The British carriers win in this category. They were very well armored, to the point that Invincible even lived up to its name while operating in the Med.

Eh, this I'd disagree with. British CVs were at best adequate, I tend to wonder why they tended to flood so easily after 1 torpedo hit. >20,000 ton vessels should be able to withstand at least a torpedo or two. They lacked emergency power systems, lacked decent airgroup sizes and tended to be rather bad at turning. Only until the end of the war did they start putting decent CV designs on the table (Malta). That all said, they did look nice for the most part.

A bomb penetration in their hangar was very bad news--not just the blast damage, but the shock damage to the ship structure.

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 ).
 
I would suggest that if design means most potent ship for its weight then obviously one would have to go for one of the smaller ships, if one includes survivability in one's assay then probably a CA or BB would take the title but if "best designed" is taken to mean which ship most efficiently meets its design requirements and got something useful done ( after all a ship could very efficiently meet its design requirement to be the best anti-rowboat CA in the fleet but that CA is unlikely to be useful in a fleet action.
 
 
If we're limiting it to warships then the best-designed pound for pound is going to have to be the late-war schnellbooten. Excellent armament and seaworthiness ( for their size ) and fairly good survivability make them superior to the PTs ( although the PTs WERE very well-designed for the environment in which they worked - which featured dashes from cover and rewarded manoeuvrability and small size more than the situation in the Channel did ).
 
If you aren't going pound for pound and are going to include larger vessels albeit with the understanding that one cannot outrule a ship simply because it couldn't defeat a ship twice its size in battle then I'd have to go for the US CLs with the 15 x 6 inch guns. Their rate of fire and multiple turrets let them simply rape any IJN DD, CL and even most of the CAs. Their guns had long range and by filling the air with enough 6 inch shells ( up to 120 per minute IIRC ) you were guaranteed to get some hits at what you were aiming at fairly rapidly ( and those hits were likely to be very devastating ). Certainly when matched up against RN and IJN CLs those USN CLs with the 15 x 6 inch guns ( I can't remember the class name right now ) tend to reign supreme given the twin advantages of more guns and superior armour +/- radar when facing IJN CLs

ORIGINAL: Iridium

ORIGINAL: Terminus

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

Shimakaze > Akitsuki in tonnage?

2567 vs 2701

Shimakaze wasn't all that big, the issue with it perhaps was the role it fulfilled was not going to be used by Japan against the US. It wasn't the right DD for Japan at the time, another Akitsuki would have been more useful.

I dunno, Ryujo was about as durable as any other Japanese CVL, it had a large hangar, decent range and 29 kt speed...I'd say it was a success for what it was.

One problem with the Ryujo was that its flight deck was so short that it couldn't launch much of a strike and couldn't maintain a standing CAP.

i stand by both my assertations, and can produce references if you want (i'll have to find them, though first).

The Bismarck had several exercises where she tried to steer by engines with no damage (during training) - and basically could not accomplish it. True, the rudder might have doomed her anyway, although that is another debate.

I've read that the Bismarck was able to steer without it's rudder - but only as long as it was not turned in more than 15 or 20°.
As the Bismarck was hit when it tried to evade torpedoes, the rudder was turned in more - and that caused the problems!

Of course it was able to steer with it's engines!

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

ORIGINAL: Big B

ORIGINAL: Shark7
....

Cruisers: Gonna give this category to the Brooklyn CLs. 15 6" guns are just plain scary. And at least one of the class was still in active service in the early 1980s.
...

I won't add to the rest, but as for the Brooklyns';
They not only carried class A armor (better quality and thicker in the vitals than other nations' CA 'treaty cruisers...including Japans'), their 6" L47's were very long range and fired very heavy shells (for 6") and very fast firing (her fifteen gun battery could fire at a 'minimum' of 120 rounds per minute - 8 to 10 rounds per tube, per minute).
Combined with effective advanced fire control arrangements, RADAR ...and some experience by crewman ...they were just devastating to surface ships within 20,000 yards.
That is why the US Navy sought only Brooklyn/St.Louis/Cleveland class CLs for night engagements after Guadalcanal.
A good example was Montpelier (granted - a Cleveland) fired over 1,800 rounds of 6/47" & 5/38" in only 15 minutes at the first battle of Kula Gulf in early '43...and then went on later that night to fire over 700 rds of 6" during the nights planned bombardment.

Anyway, national-pride-be-damned, the Brooklyn's were excellent ships for their day.

EDIT: Not to mention the Savannah single handedly turning away the Herman Goering Panzer Division in the Gulf of Gela at Sicily in 1943...

I agree. Do not forget the effect Brooklyn had on the other designs being touted (Cleveland and Baltimore). It has to be the best design. The evidence is enormous to support this.

Given that the Clevelands were the follow-on class, had one less turret, and were regarded by the Navy as overloaded makes me wonder whether the Brooklyns were really that good.

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 ).

I would suggest that if design means most potent ship for its weight then obviously one would have to go for one of the smaller ships, if one includes survivability in one's assay then probably a CA or BB would take the title but if "best designed" is taken to mean which ship most efficiently meets its design requirements and got something useful done ( after all a ship could very efficiently meet its design requirement to be the best anti-rowboat CA in the fleet but that CA is unlikely to be useful in a fleet action.


If we're limiting it to warships then the best-designed pound for pound is going to have to be the late-war schnellbooten. Excellent armament and seaworthiness ( for their size ) and fairly good survivability make them superior to the PTs ( although the PTs WERE very well-designed for the environment in which they worked - which featured dashes from cover and rewarded manoeuvrability and small size more than the situation in the Channel did ).

If you aren't going pound for pound and are going to include larger vessels albeit with the understanding that one cannot outrule a ship simply because it couldn't defeat a ship twice its size in battle then I'd have to go for the US CLs with the 15 x 6 inch guns. Their rate of fire and multiple turrets let them simply rape any IJN DD, CL and even most of the CAs. Their guns had long range and by filling the air with enough 6 inch shells ( up to 120 per minute IIRC ) you were guaranteed to get some hits at what you were aiming at fairly rapidly ( and those hits were likely to be very devastating ). Certainly when matched up against RN and IJN CLs those USN CLs with the 15 x 6 inch guns ( I can't remember the class name right now ) tend to reign supreme given the twin advantages of more guns and superior armour +/- radar when facing IJN CLs

The USN CLs were designed to serve with the Battle Fleet, providing protection against massed torpedo attacks by destroyers. The Atlantas were designed to be flotilla leaders, providing command facilities and gunnery support to our DD flotillas. The USN CAs were designed for independent operations and as part of carrier screens.

For AK, I'd agree with Nemo and plump for the humble Liberty ship. A true design classic and an unsung war winner.

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

ORIGINAL: Big B


I won't add to the rest, but as for the Brooklyns';
They not only carried class A armor (better quality and thicker in the vitals than other nations' CA 'treaty cruisers...including Japans'), their 6" L47's were very long range and fired very heavy shells (for 6") and very fast firing (her fifteen gun battery could fire at a 'minimum' of 120 rounds per minute - 8 to 10 rounds per tube, per minute).
Combined with effective advanced fire control arrangements, RADAR ...and some experience by crewman ...they were just devastating to surface ships within 20,000 yards.
That is why the US Navy sought only Brooklyn/St.Louis/Cleveland class CLs for night engagements after Guadalcanal.
A good example was Montpelier (granted - a Cleveland) fired over 1,800 rounds of 6/47" & 5/38" in only 15 minutes at the first battle of Kula Gulf in early '43...and then went on later that night to fire over 700 rds of 6" during the nights planned bombardment.

Anyway, national-pride-be-damned, the Brooklyn's were excellent ships for their day.

EDIT: Not to mention the Savannah single handedly turning away the Herman Goering Panzer Division in the Gulf of Gela at Sicily in 1943...

I agree. Do not forget the effect Brooklyn had on the other designs being touted (Cleveland and Baltimore). It has to be the best design. The evidence is enormous to support this.

Given that the Clevelands were the follow-on class, had one less turret, and were regarded by the Navy as overloaded makes me wonder whether the Brooklyns were really that good.

Look at the hotch-potch fumbling in US Cruiser design before the Brooklyn and the story after and it will become clear what a good basic design she was. Bearing in mind when she was designed, the achievement becomes even more impressive.

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Historiker

i stand by both my assertations, and can produce references if you want (i'll have to find them, though first).

The Bismarck had several exercises where she tried to steer by engines with no damage (during training) - and basically could not accomplish it. True, the rudder might have doomed her anyway, although that is another debate.

I've read that the Bismarck was able to steer without it's rudder - but only as long as it was not turned in more than 15 or 20°.
As the Bismarck was hit when it tried to evade torpedoes, the rudder was turned in more - and that caused the problems!

Of course it was able to steer with it's engines!

IIRC Bismarck had 3 screws (and all of them rather close together) - thus steering with screws alone was not possible (or insignificant)...


Leo "Apollo11"

Their 5.25 equipped AA Cruisers were superb ships and were not as cramped and top heavy as the Atlantas.

Eek! The Didos were a poor design, top-heavy and poorly subdivided, showing great eagerness to capsize. And for "AA" cruisers, they were lousy against aircraft.

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

Their 5.25 equipped AA Cruisers were superb ships and were not as cramped and top heavy as the Atlantas.

Eek! The Didos were a poor design, top-heavy and poorly subdivided, showing great eagerness to capsize. And for "AA" cruisers, they were lousy against aircraft.

Now I have had time to think about it, I agree. The gun was good, but the directing equipment was poor. Although they were not as cramped as the Atlantas, they were not as effective. In fact the best of these British cruisers turned out to be the ones fitted with lighter turrets (4" and 4.5") due to the low availabilty of the intended main gun. They cannot be considered a great design...

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

For example, Iowas NEVER seen real battle,if you exclude bombarding Iraq,thus you cant see if Iowas has flaws or not. You can see just big "IF"

A reasonably well-informed "IF" shows that Iowa had the armor and armament to easily best Bismarck, since the latter couldn't penetrate an Iowa. And this says nothing about the inferior secondary armament and fire control on Bismarck.

Bismarck sunk pride of RN in five minutes and criple next pride of RN in one battle.

Bismarck sank a woefully undearmored battlecruiser with a lucky hit in five minutes, and just barely escaped from a British battleship even though the latter was deployed before her guns had been productively worked up. If KGV had been there, or even old Rodney, rather than Prince of Wales, Bismarck would have been sunk shortly after Hood went down.

I think that we should not compare apples and oranges here (again [;)])...

Comparing Iowa and Bismarck is impossible because there are 4 years separating them (and in those 4 years a lot has changed - for example the WWII already started in Europe when Iowa was laid down)!

The same thing applies to comparing Hood and Bismarck - this time 20 years separate two opponents.

But what we can say is that at that certain time and place (i.e. May 1941) any existing BB on German and UK side could sink the opposite one (yes even 280mm from Scharnhorst / Gneisenau could kill the RN opponent if falling on right place).

The thing with BBs is that there never was no "full protection" - there was always a compromise with size, tonnage, propulsion, armament and armor...


Leo "Apollo11"

I've read that the Bismarck was able to steer without it's rudder

I believe it's already been pointed out that Bismarck first revealed her inadequacy at steering by engines on her trials. Her captain specifically mentioned it. However, I can't see it as a major flaw. We would not even mention it if not for that single torpedo hit. The fact is that Bismarck's steering gear protection was quite good by European standards--but that involves only armor, not intended to defeat torpedoes. Just for fun, I'll note a couple other incidents that might be instructive. Marblehead had her rudder jammed, but she was able to stear by engines. Intrepid had her rudder jammed and found herself steaming inexorably toward the enemy; she escaped when her crew fashioned a sail that counteracted the rudder. Vittorio Veneto survived a torpedo hit to her stern; she had three rudders.

The gun was good, but the directing equipment was poor.

The gun was pretty good in the anti-ship role, though I personally don't see an advantage over a 6-incher. At high elevation (AA), the cramped mount made for a slow rate of fire. I'm with you on the 4.5in gun. That's a goodie.

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.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

In Re: Type XXI - see Clay Blair's book Hitler's U-Boat War - The Hunted 1942-1945 (Blair has been accused of being way over the top in being pro-U-boat, so if anything he is tends to be too forgiving of their faults)

I think you have that backwards [;)]. Blair was accused of being way over the top in terms of being anti-Uboat. His rather negative accessment from visiting the captured Type XXI at the end of the war and his mentioning of his service's acomplishments in the forward of Volume one didn't help matters, nor his continual and chronic use of negative adjetives when describing specific German uboat types within the text of his volumes.

Oops![:o] i guess i was remembering his pro-sub bias from his first book Silent Victory...[8|]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

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.

That's what modular construction and rushed designs does for you. The Liberty ships were a crucial part of winning the war for the Allies, but a good design they certainly weren't.

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

I've read that the Bismarck was able to steer without it's rudder

I believe it's already been pointed out that Bismarck first revealed her inadequacy at steering by engines on her trials. Her captain specifically mentioned it. However, I can't see it as a major flaw. We would not even mention it if not for that single torpedo hit. The fact is that Bismarck's steering gear protection was quite good by European standards--but that involves only armor, not intended to defeat torpedoes. Just for fun, I'll note a couple other incidents that might be instructive. Marblehead had her rudder jammed, but she was able to stear by engines. Intrepid had her rudder jammed and found herself steaming inexorably toward the enemy; she escaped when her crew fashioned a sail that counteracted the rudder. Vittorio Veneto survived a torpedo hit to her stern; she had three rudders.

Out of curiosity, what do you make of the claims that Bismarck could have "backed" into port*?

*I.e. - after the torpedo hit, she had weathercocked into the wind, and was moving directly away from port and towards the enemy. One group of naval officers has claimed had she been put into backing astern , she would have moved in the (generally) correct direction and probably would have been able to escape her pursuers.

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

I've read that the Bismarck was able to steer without it's rudder

I believe it's already been pointed out that Bismarck first revealed her inadequacy at steering by engines on her trials. Her captain specifically mentioned it. However, I can't see it as a major flaw. We would not even mention it if not for that single torpedo hit. The fact is that Bismarck's steering gear protection was quite good by European standards--but that involves only armor, not intended to defeat torpedoes. Just for fun, I'll note a couple other incidents that might be instructive. Marblehead had her rudder jammed, but she was able to stear by engines. Intrepid had her rudder jammed and found herself steaming inexorably toward the enemy; she escaped when her crew fashioned a sail that counteracted the rudder. Vittorio Veneto survived a torpedo hit to her stern; she had three rudders.

Out of curiosity, what do you make of the claims that Bismarck could have "backed" into port*?

*I.e. - after the torpedo hit, she had weathercocked into the wind, and was moving directly away from port and towards the enemy. One group of naval officers has claimed had she been put into backing astern , she would have moved in the (generally) correct direction and probably would have been able to escape her pursuers.

I asked this same question few years ago and "Tiornu" answered that it was, most likely, not possible due to wind direction, sea and damage... apparently the Bismarch was moving in the only possible direction...


Leo "Apollo11"

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


Oops![:o] i guess i was remembering his pro-sub bias from his first book Silent Victory...[8|]

Yup. I'm glad i'm not the only one who noticed his dramatic about face between book writings. [;)]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

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.

That's what modular construction and rushed designs does for you. The Liberty ships were a crucial part of winning the war for the Allies, but a good design they certainly weren't.

What is the definition of a good design in that case? They were needed to be cheap, easy to assemble and carry a certain amount of cargo at a certain speed. I believe this was achieved? They allowed Allied yards to build more ships than the Allies were losing. They achieved their purpose and served well after the war.