Prinz Eugen

[Kyriakos]

Humongous H-44 class was the real deal.

Watch this six hours documentary about the construction of the H-44 class.

Looks pretty big, but useless (still would be sunk by airplanes, unless it remained close to the coast; serving as what?).

Bottom: the Yamato
Top: H-44 class

 

[Lexicus]

serving as what?

*ahem*

As I said, oversized escorts.

 

[Kyriakos]

If it had to be near the (anti-air battery filled) coasts, it would be morelike turrets on train/armored train. Just more turrets.
Likely would make more sense to install the turrets on the coast, and fortify them. Assuming they would be used to sink ships and prevent an invasion.

 

[Lexicus]

If it had to be near the (anti-air battery filled) coasts, it would be morelike turrets on train/armored train. Just more turrets.
Likely would make more sense to install the turrets on the coast, and fortify them. Assuming they would be used to sink ships and prevent an invasion.

Perhaps. I don't know whether stationary gun turrets are considerably less expensive than battleships, but there are obvious advantages to having a mobile gun platform.

 

[Kyriakos]

If the side had air superiority, the ships didn't matter. Iirc Italy had a number of capital battleships, in the med, which were all sunk by airplanes. The british fleet likely didn't have similar large ships in the med, and never needed to bring them there either (?).

Ships were on the way out even a little before ww1, as the main weapon. Eg in the Franco-Prussian war, Prussia just installed large batteries on its coast, rendering the french navy useless (i think the naval regiments were transformed to land regiments and fought as just that). Now if this can happen between a side with a number of ships (France) and something with no ships at all (Prussia), you get the point.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

They should forbid naval aviation and missiles. Battleships are so cool... So much practicity spoils wars.

 

[Evie]

A four-gun howitzer battery on Coregidor cost about 112 000$ to build in 1908-1914. In comparison, the HMS Royal Oak (1914 vintage super dreadnought) cost something on the order of 2.5m pounds, which is something around 11m dollars. The 1910 USS Texas costs something on the order of 5.6 million 1910 dollars. The cost would increase staggeringly within a few years: The KGV cost 7-ish million pounds in 1940, which would adjusted for inflation be 4.2 million pounds in 1914 (roughly then 20 million 1914 USDs). The much more powerful Iowa cost 100 millions or so to commission, which would amount to 71.4 million USDs in 1914, more than thrice the price of a KGV. Doubtless, the Yamato and H-44 would be even pricier, covering the cost of hundreds of gun batteries.

 

[Kyriakos]

They should forbid naval aviation and missiles. Battleships are so cool... So much practicity spoils wars.

In many ancient greek states, using bows or slings was considered to lack honor, because it allowed less heroic people to defeat an actually good fighter.

Ultimately, though, by the time of the theban-spartan wars (and the theban hegemony afterwards) the armies consisted of heavy and light infantry, peltasts or similar, and cavalry. Philip of Macedonia was a captive at Thebes at the time, and organized his own army in a similar way. The ideal of the heroic hoplite had died out at Leuktra, for better or for worse, and Alexander relied as much on his cavalry as he did on his heavy infantry.

 

[onejayhawk]

Funny that no one has mentioned the North Carolina. Why is that?

J

 

[Evie]

Because by and large, we're comparing the state of the art battleships of each combatant in WW 2 (Bismarcks, Yamatos, KGVs, Iowas), and North Carolina, despite being able to stand its own against many of the other WW2 top battleship, wasn't even the second-best American design (an honor that goes to South Dakota).

The fact that the US had *three* separate class of ships belonging in a "how would modern battleships fare against each other", ten ships in total, only goes to highlight how futile 1 v 1 scenarios of one Yamato and one Iowa are. It wouldn't have happened like that. It would have been a Yamato (or both) against half a dozen modern American battleships in some combination of Iowas, South Daks and North Carolinas. And there's no plausible way the Yamatos, even if both of them are present, are winning that gun battle.

Like most everything else in World War two, it's economy, not how superb the weapons you build are, that define the fate of battles.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Funny that no one has mentioned the North Carolina. Why is that?

J

'cause it was scrapped long before WW2(i'm assuming you're referring to the 16,000 ton 16 knot one from 1908...

 

[onejayhawk]

The North Carolina saw more action in WW II than any other US Navy battleship. It was extremely successful in its role.

J

 

[Hrothbern]

The North Carolina saw more action in WW II than any other US Navy battleship. It was extremely successful in its role.

J

yes
The WW2 North Carolina (1941) was the 4th one named so and apparently top notch in her days.

The ship arrived at Pearl Harbor on July 11 1942; according to sailors there, North Carolina was "the most beautiful thing they had ever seen", and her arrival in Hawaii greatly increased the morale of the Pacific Fleet.[10] North Carolina departed 15 July in a task force of the aircraft carrier Enterprise, the heavy cruiser Portland, the light cruiser Atlanta, and eight screening destroyers headed for combat in the South Pacific.[12]

She participated in the Battle of the Eastern Solomons, on August 24–25, 1942.[13] The Americans struck first, sinking the carrier Ryūjō. The Japanese counterattacked with dive bombers and torpedo bombers, covered by fighters, striking at Enterprise and North Carolina.[15] In a mere eight-minute action, the ship's antiaircraft batteries shot down between 7 and 14 enemy aircraft, her gunners remaining at their posts despite the jarring detonations of seven near misses. One sailor was killed by strafing, but the ship was undamaged. Her antiaircraft fire was so heavy that the officers of Enterprise asked, "Are you afire?"[8]

North Carolina fired 841 5-inch (127 mm) shells, 1037 rounds of 1.1-inch (28 mm) shells, 7425 rounds of 20-mm shells, and 8641 rounds of .50 caliber machine gun ammunition during the attack.[16] The gunners of her 5-inch antiaircraft guns "...estimated that the rate of fire exceeded 17 rounds per minute on all guns..."

 

[Cutlass]

Funny that no one has mentioned the North Carolina. Why is that?

J

Also more powerful than the Bismark. But the design suffered too much from trying to shoehorn a 16"x9gun platform into something that could be technically called within treaty limits. They saw a lot of action, and were capable ships. But no one loved the results the design imposed.

 

[Broken_Erika]

North Carolina, South Carolina; there's only a slight 20,000 ton difference....

 

[Evie]

The North Carolina was an excellent ship, certainly a top world war two battleship. It's just that having the longest wartime service of the modern US battleships means also that she was the *first* of the modern US battleships, allowing her later siblings the South Dakotas and the Iowas to incorporate significant upgrades over the original North Carolina design. That they derived so much of their design from the North Carolina is a testament to how good a battleship she was, though.

I'd rank her fourth overall among World War two battleships, edged out by Iowa, Yamato and South Dakota, but ahead of Richelieu (a criminally underrated ship), and decidedly ahead of the way overrated Bismarck.

(Bismarck owe her reputation to timing and luck: a lucky, imagination-striking shot on the Hood, and the fact that at the time of her sortie, the Royal Navy stood alone, and only had one and a half KGV-class for modern battleships, since the Prince of Wales was not yet at full operational capacity. Tirpitz, completed a mere six months after Bismarck, was already much less able to compete with her rivals, and usually mostly stayed in port to avoid the attention of whatever stray North Carolinas, South Dakotas or KGVs happened to be in the vicinity (and the allies usually made sure to keep a few of those on han to hunt her down in case she came out to play)

 

[Broken_Erika]

Iowa had the advantage of being designed from the ground up with no limits on displacement or cost other than the ability to use the panama canal. The North Carolina's were originally designed as "Treaty Battleships" with 12 x 14' guns and below a certain tonnage limit but were changed to 9 x 16' guns when japan refused to share the details of their new battleships armament.

 

[Evie]

And even having that advantage, Iowa still took much of its design inspiration from the North Carolina/South Dakota lineage (which is a testament to the design of these two classes). Just modified to take advantage of the lack of treaty limits.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If the side had air superiority, the ships didn't matter. Iirc Italy had a number of capital battleships, in the med, which were all sunk by airplanes. The british fleet likely didn't have similar large ships in the med, and never needed to bring them there either (?).

Ships were on the way out even a little before ww1, as the main weapon. Eg in the Franco-Prussian war, Prussia just installed large batteries on its coast, rendering the french navy useless (i think the naval regiments were transformed to land regiments and fought as just that). Now if this can happen between a side with a number of ships (France) and something with no ships at all (Prussia), you get the point.

The French navy was "rendered useless" by the fact they were fighting an enemy with no sea presence whatever. Much like air to air missiles and air superiority fighters are "rendered useless" by an opponent that has no aircraft.

 

[Evie]

To the point, while everyone talk about the U-boat threat to Britain in World War I-II...the *British* blockade in both wars crippled Germany pretty effectively, too.

IN a world where you can't produce every resource in your own country (which the XXth century onward is for most counties), being cut off from sea transport because you have no navy to protect your commerce is a crippling blow.