2nd best WWII DD design

[bobogoboom]

ORIGINAL: Dora09

I don’t think anyone ever implied that a BB is the same as a DD. The thread started off about the best DD designs. I put my bid in for Shimakaze, and the Yugumo class. Then someone brought up the Bismarck and everyone started claiming that it sucked (that was the hating part, exaggerated criticism is just as ridiculous as exaggerated praise), I simply was pointing out that while the Bismarck had some significant flaws, it was still a very powerful ship class.

“I don't much love or hate ships, I may ask what were they designed to do, I may look at the evidence of whether they did that (or something else). But loving or hating ships (they are not my own) doesn't much enter my frame of thought.”

Why no love? Many of these ships (aircraft and tanks too) are works of art. How could you not fall in love with the lines of the p38, or the fragile beauty of the Ki43, the aggressive and purposeful look of the Yamato (and the Iowa), the sinister look of the Tiger or my favorite, the poetry in the evolution of Nakajima’s wing design (Ki27 through to the Ki84)?

and i was saying that compared to the contemporary battleship designes it was significantly worse.

[borner]

well, this thread has gone off the beaten path already.....
 
best Heavy Crusier, Jan 42.... and in reply to my friend earlier in the thread, I think the US comes in about dead last in this one.
 
My personal pick is the Zara class... too bad they became 15" swiss cheese early in the war.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Dora09

Why no love?

If I've been aboard a vessel, especially at Sea (in the Ocean) for a period of time - and feel like "we" (the vessel and I) have been through things together, then yes, I can feel "love".

But falling in "love" with design specs or production data, or range performance data, etc. nah, I would'nt call that "love", not for me anyway.

[bobogoboom]

ORIGINAL: borner

well, this thread has gone off the beaten path already.....

best Heavy Crusier, Jan 42.... and in reply to my friend earlier in the thread, I think the US comes in about dead last in this one.

My personal pick is the Zara class... too bad they became 15" swiss cheese early in the war.

yeah us heavy cruisers were bad. luckily we got radar and really good light cruisers late in the war to help us out.

[Dora09]

I understand jwilk.

I didn't mean "falling in love" with specs but with the design as a whole (often inspite of its flaws). For example I have a large amount of love for the Ki43. That doesn't mean I am not aware of its many short comings, but it is a beautiful design never the less. Of course it is a matter of taste and is totally subjective, but some designs just seem to have more soul than others IMO.

[jwilkerson]

Well if you haven't seen this one - it is interesting article on Ki-43 armament.

http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdunn/nakajima_ki43arm.htm

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: vettim89


Well as we are trying to be all encompassing here, let me add this:

Ginger or MaryAnn?

Hell, I'd still do Dawn Wells.

[thegreatwent]

Well if you haven't seen this one - it is interesting article on Ki-43 armament.

Nice article and interesting site. Thanks!

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: Dora09
You mentioned the sinking of the Hood, but the Battle of the Atlantic was almost won by the Wolf Packs.

Not sure I agree with this. I know Blair's views tend to polarise people but I stand more in his pro camp in that over 90% of Merchant ships and material came through to the UK as such to say Wolf Packs nearly won it IMO is not true. They certianly scored some notable successes and caused consternation at some points during the battle but IMO weren't close to sinking enough of the Merchies........

[DuckofTindalos]

Indeed so, but Britain did teeter on the brink for a while. That 90% of all merchantmen crossed the Atlantic unscathed is correct, but this was over the course of the entire war, including the 18-24 months of convoys after the Battle of the Atlantic had been decided.

[Speedysteve]

Nonsense. Us Brits are made of sterner stuff you know T....teetering? No way. We just ate more worms and stuff to compensate[;)]

[John Lansford]

Even during the worst months the sinking of ships in inbound convoys created at the worst a temporary shortage of food, though.  The Germans just did not have enough U-boats early in the war to make a difference, and by the time they did have sufficient subs, the British had ramped up their ASW forced and could deal with them.

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Nonsense. Us Brits are made of sterner stuff you know T....teetering? No way. We just ate more worms and stuff to compensate[;)]

Hence your bad teeth...

[Speedysteve]

Hence our stout nature and our ability to comprehend who is a Dumbass Dane............

[DuckofTindalos]

LogBoy is stout, you're mincing and effeminate...[:'(]

[Speedysteve]

That makes you a footing nitwit then[:'(]

[DuckofTindalos]

Tutu-wearing oddball...[:'(]

[tocaff]

When you have a platform that's deadly to the enemy, but the enemy's sheer weight of #s wear you out you'll tend to lose due to attrition.  When the enemy has good platforms the attrition happens faster as WITP illustrates.

[Dora09]

Thanks-
I had come across that article a while back, quite interesting.

[Dora09]

For all of you that are still interested, this site is pretty cool. 
You will notice that the Bismarck (acording to this author) does rank low.  However, the author admits to comparing the Bismarck in its 1940 configuration to King George in its late war configuration, the south dakota too was a later design.  I think a better comparison would be the Bismarck to King George V 1940 configuration and the North Carolina class.  Comparing the Bismarck to the Iowa and south dakota would be like comparing the Bf 109E to a Spitfire XIV and the P51D.
  http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm#heavyweight