Best Battleship Type

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
21

With it’s radar linked, computerized (electro-mechanical switches) fire control, the Iowa-class battleship, at full speed, could track and hit running targets beyond the horizon. That was a huge advantage in ship vs ship battles. (Aircraft and missiles made the battleship obsolete.)

A battleships primary purpose was to bring six or nine huge guns within range of the enemy. Every sailor on board, from the Captain to the cooks mates, were there to insure that those guns would be in position and could inflict the greatest amount of damage possible. Machinist’s Mates, Boatswain’s Mates, Construction Mechanic’s, Damage Controlman, Quartermasters, and Postal Clerks served to bring the big guns to the party.

Or as Urbanredneck said, "Big guns aren’t worth a hoot if they cannot hit their target.

22

Plus ships like Bismark, while big and bad, were built on designs from WW1. Iowa class was built with the latest of 1941.

23

I would have thought that the metric would be how effective a particular vessel had been operationally.

We can look at how good the armour is, or the fire control systems, but really its about the history.

Which battleships dominated their era? which ones did the most damage? which was the most effective?

Its also pretty useless to consider one battleship on its own, because the deployment of them is a strategic matter - and that can rely on the number of bases and repair facilities available. There is little point in having a super lone wolf that grabs the attention for one mission and is quickly sunk - that just means it has had very little strategic effect, and that rules out Bismarck, it also rules out the Japanese super battleships.

In fact you can effectively rule out almost all the German warships except, and oddly enough, Tirpitz which had a strategic effect far beyond its actual operational use.

So, the best battleship is the one that is on the right mission in the right place at the right time, repeat this across several missions and you will have the most effective battleship, ie - the best.

24

The big problem is that battleships were almost never used in their classical role of slugging it out with the other side’s battle line, especially in World War II. Most of the time, they were used as shore bombardment ships and/or a sort of really big AA ship with the ability to engage surface targets if need be- a sort of really burly carrier escort ship.

There were examples where they did fight in their traditional role- Jutland, 2nd Guadalcanal, and a few others (Tirpitz v. Hood/Prince of Wales), but they were few and far between.

By that yardstick, older rickety ships like say… Texas (BB-35) were among the most effective, as they were strictly used as shore bombardment ships, and not as line-of-battle ships, as they were too slow, and had guns that were arguably too small. Texas though, participated in Operation Torch (N. Africa), D-Day, Cherbourg, Operation Torch (S. France), Iwo Jima and Okinawa. That’s a pretty impressive list of the major amphibious landings of the war, and by all accounts, the ship was effective in that role. And that’s not even bringing up Texas’ WWI service.

Does that make her a better battleship than the USS Iowa, that spent most of her time as a carrier escort, and didn’t even do much shore bombardment or firing at other capital ships? Somehow I doubt it.

I wouldn’t even say that USS Washington, which effectively sank Kirishima (another battleship) after the 2nd Battle of Guadalcanal a better battleship, even if it’s the only US battleship that I’m aware of that actually sank another battleship outright through gunfire. Even the two Japanese battleships engaged by US battleships in in the Battle of the Surigao Strait were actually sunk by torpedoes launched by US destroyers.

There’s no good way to determine which one was “best”- about all we can do is extrapolate based on statistics and expected mission.

25

Can you spot the mistake? :slight_smile:

26

And both doomed by little single engine airplanes.

27

I would not limit the debate to the design missions of the battleship.

Effective use of any military resource is not just about using them in the original design capacity, its about using resources in their most effective capacity, if it turns out that this use means that the purpose of the resource had changes, and is effective, well that’s what it is all about - rather than limiting your battleship to fighting the pervious war.

So, if it turns out that shore bombardment was the most useful and critical mission for the war effort, then you would have to make due consideration of that aspect.

This then brings into focus the ability of the commanders, because improvisation and recognition of changing roles proved to be vital in the sea war.

Warspite was not the most powerful or best armoured battleship, but it was used in a number of critical missions, and was extremely effective in most, if not all of them.

Ramillies was an even older lump of metal, and certainly would not have been risked in surface fleet actions against similar classes of warships, however, the shore bombardment role it undertook at Normandy broke up German tank formations when they eventually began to make their way toward the beachheads - not all that glorious but critically important to D-Day follow up and in terms of strategic importance, not easy to exaggerate.

Why confine this to any particular era? surely when evaluating the best battleship of all time, you have to look at the times when it was operated.

28

Bismarck, not Tirpitz. At least I was in the right class!

29

Then Alessan’s answer is actually the right one- the 74 gun 3rd rate was pretty much THE ship of the line class for over 100 years.

30

Norton ConnectSafe doesn’t want me to go to that site…

31

The Bismark has the best shooting record of any battleship: three one-on-one engagements and it found the range for all within 4 salvos. However, the Warspite (along with the Gneisnau) holds the distance record.

32

Bismarck holds the “F-cked by Biplanes” record.

33

Not as many torpedo hits as, say, Prince of Wales and Repulse?

34

It’s link to a JPG of a Russian WWI battleship. Not much danger in hitting the jpg.

I have no info plus or minus on the rest of the site’s safety.

35

If “best” means most theoretically capable, regardless of actual battle results, then the latest and greatest design is almost always the winner. Since they aren’t being built anymore (Ranchoth’s silly thread How might you build an "updated" Iowa class battleship, today? - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board notwithstanding) the last design is probable the best. That’s Iowa as so many have already said.

My point is that it’s best simply by being newest, not by being inherently bestest. Had history been different the Japanese or Russians or Germans or Brits may well have built something much better in the 1950s. Which would have in turn been leapfrogged in the 1960s.

The Iowa class is simply when the music stopped for battleships. In a sense, that’s a win by luck, not skill.
I agree with casdave that these specifications dick-waving contests are the usual armchair fanboy way to talk about weapon systems (or cars, guns, supermodels, etc.) but it’s grossly misleading and amateurish as military analysis.

IMO the “best” battleship is the one that did the most good in its time to advance its country’s agenda at the least cost in blood and treasure.

I am not enough of a naval historian to answer that question. But I think that is not merely the proper question to ask, but really the only interesting question to ask. Otherwise, for almost any technological topic the answer to “which is best?” can be answered “Whichever is newest.”

Here’s an anecdote to support my point. Last weekend the last flying B-17 & B-24 happened to be at my nearby airport. Wife and I took the tour, crawling through the fuselages of both. I grew up going to warbird airshows and my wife was USAF too. We’d both seen plenty of WWII warbirds & later warplanes over the years. Still the tour and conversation was sobering to say the least.

I compared the B-17, heavy bomber *extraordinaire *of its era, to the F-16, a small lightweight fighter by modern standards. The F-16 can carry 4x the bombs, 3x as far, 4x as fast, deliver them with 100x the (unguided) accuracy, and expose 1/10th the number of men to danger.

Is the F-16 a “better” bomber than the B-17? Or just a newer one?

36

Best primary guns (but lousy shells) - Bismark
Best secondary guns - Yamato
Best fire control, damage control, radar - Iowa
Best optics - Yamato
Best armor - South Dakata
Best kill - Washington (South Dakota class)

37

You know what your problem is, Pal?
Your damn problem is that you confuse people with the facts, Pal!
:dubious:

38

What was that?

I would think the Japanese battleships that destroyed the Black Sea Fleet.

39

Baltic fleet.

40

The Kirishima, Pal.