RENOWN WAS A BC.BUT I GUESS I WAS READING THE WRONG BOOK.BECAUSE HMS HOOD WAS A LIGHT CRUISER, BISMARCK WAS AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER, THE QE2 CLASS WERE SUBMARINES, AND U-BOATS WERE HEAVY CRUISERS.OH AND THE KGV CLASS WERE DESTORYER ESCORTS.WERE ALL READING THE WRONG BOOKS PEOPLE THESE ARE REAL FACTS.BLEW MY MIND AWAY.LOL
RENOWN had a length of 750ft.The QE2 Class were 645ft long.And the RENOWN IS A BC JUST LIKE HOOD .PEOPLE can play there numbers game but in the end it just doesn;t add up ,and in the end they lose
Renown was a BB, as SAME as Hood was. Both were BB's, due to having 380mm guns and, armor of 350mm max. The BC COULDN'T have that kind of performances.
People are TOO MUCH reading crap, and buying it, and they DON'T know how to think with their heads and make simple FACTS based on LOGISTICS, which are sometimes better than proofs itself.
@TNT222100 that quote came from a website i can't paste,but if you bother to google what is a battlecruiser you will find it easy enough,and that pretty much says what all my books i have on the subject says on the subject, just looking at dimensions means fuck all because all battlecrusiers were supposed to be the same length as a battleship,so they could in the british case still have the same amount of main guns and machinery but less armour than a battleship so they had supeior speed get it?
Each nation classifies ships to their own specifications. The Admiral-class BATTLECRUISER is a Battlecruiser in the RN, could be called a Battleship in USN sense. But whats on paper, planned and built, is what its called.
But of course, you can always call Hood a BB since you dont wanna accept that its an Admiral-class BC :)
BC HOOD, I MEAN BB HOOD SHOULD HAVE,( UNDER THE DEFINITION OF A BB) BEEN ABLE TO ENGAGE BISMARCK IN EQUAL TERMS AND RESIST THE EFFECTS OF BISMARCKS GUNS TO A RESONABLE DEGREE IN SUSTAINED COMBAT.BUT WHAT HAPPENED,WE'LL BB HOOD LASTED 8 MINS, BECAUSE HOOD WAS A BC. NOT A BB.I WILL SAY IT AGAIN, HOOD WAS BC
Once agian you can't go by size and firepwer EX the RENOWN CLASS BC HAD A LENGTH OF 750FT.THE NELSON CLASS BB HAD A LENGTH OF 660FT,THE KGV LENGTH 745FT.so throw that argument out the window.A BC CAN'T WITHSTAND FIREPOWER EQUAL OR SUPERIOR TO ITS OWN.BISMARCK VS HOOD BOTH ARMED 15INCH GUNS WHO WON REALLY.AND YOU CAN'T USE THE REASON BECAUSE OF HOODS DECK ARMOUR BECAUSE BC'S ARE LIGHTY ARMOURED TO BEGIN WITH.
Yes Hood was a battlecruiser of the Admiral class which was designed during ww1 to counter the german Mackensen class BC.The british gave there BC the same big guns that armed there BB,but weaker armour..It all boils down to the reason behind the concept.EX the G3's were armed with 9 16inch guns speed 32 knots and were intend to be BC.There is a difference between fast BB and BC.And bismarck was vulnerable to 14inch guns under 15,000yds. feel free to comment if you disagree,
@LukaZ0001 You say that, yet the Bismarck was dealt serious damage during the Battle of the Denmark Strait, by the inexperienced crew of HMS Prince of Wales.
A 14'' Shell thereof going all the way though Bismarck's bow, Puncturing her Forward fuel tanks, which reduced her speed, left her with barely enough fuel to make Brest, & made her infinitely more locatable from the air, which a RAF Catalina subsequently did.
Plus the simple fact that her steering was then taken out by "Flying Bicycles" ;)
@TSR1989RN ...If you want the most Effective Battleship of all, try
HMS Warspite, she proved her worth many times over during her 30+ year life. From the Battle of Jutland in 1916 (still the Largest single exchange of Naval Firepower in world history), to the many theaters of conflict she participated in during WWII, including when she sank two Italian Heavy Cruisers in a single afternoon.
She was in the Newsreels so often during WWII, her crew were known round the Fleet as "The Moviestars".
@m4mihulja You are however mostly correct about the Kongo Class, as they were originally defined as Battlecruisers, but were later redefined as "Fast-Battleships"
(after extensive rebuild work was carried out on all the ships of that class).
Separately: In Firepower & Protection the Queen Elizabeth & Revenge Class Battleships equaled the Bismarck Class, in Firepower HMS Nelson & Rodney outclassed them. Bismarck's only meaningful advantage over any of the aforementioned was her greater speed.
@TSR1989RN Bismarck was better than any RN BB. Why?
Bismarck's guns were better, because they were 50. cal. long. All RN were 45. cal.
She also had better secondary and AA armament, in which the RN was very bad. Nelson class didn't even have AA.
She also had better armor than any RN BB, except Nelson class, but Nelson was far smaller and lighter, which means that her thicker armor wasn't worth much.
Bismarck also had far better trained crew, and that was proven.
@m4mihulja Sorry but as someone who's studied Battleships & Marine History/Engineering in General since childhood i have to disagree on the following:
1: HMS Hood was a "Admiral Class Battlecruiser" (the only one completed due to post war treaties), at no point in her 23+ year life was she ever referred to as anything else.
2: As the David Mearnes Expedition to the Wreck site proved, the KGV Class's 14'' Guns were more than effective against the Bismarck,
@TSR1989RN I don't care, pal. Hood was a BB, and I gave you proofs why. You didn't. Hood had 380mm guns armor of 350mm max., and length of 250m, a.k.a. BB.
Also, Bismarck's armor was 350mm max., and the 350mm Mk-VII had max. AP of 400mm at 10km, (closest range), and 200mm at at 30km (longest range). That means that Bismarck armor could be penetrated at close range, but not in long range.
If it wasn't Rodney, the King George V would have fate of Prince of Wales.
@Ajr5691 Relax, It's just the guy's oppinion. The Bismarck was my favorite on the list too, mostly because I like the legend of it's fate. What's sad is the stupid British commander halted the wreckage rescue party claiming to see a U-boat or something like that leaving all those people to die. I speculate it was probably more of a vengeance for the loss of the hood. It sickens me aswell to see us constantly be called stupid, because if it were true others would be smart enough to stop warring.
@okjoek1 It probably was out of spite all the people died. The German army were the best soldiers for the worst cause. And the Bismarck was the best ship for the wost cause.
@Ajr5691 Deftinatly true. What song is this anyway? I downloaded it using my youtube to mp3 converter but I can't get a name incase I wanted to credit it incase I ever used it.
@m4mihulja If it had not been in a 4:1 situation, we would be speaking German. We will never know the possibilities of this great ship because of it's untmely demise.
@LukaZ0001 Why? Just because you're a German, that means that your ship is No.1? No, dude. Everyone thinks that his country ship is No.1. But that's wrong and subjective.
Interesting though, I heard a lot of Americans on You Tube spewing that Iowa is No.1, some Brits spewing that K. George V is No.1, rare Germans spewing that Bismarck is No.1..., but I never heard a Japanese saying that Yamato is No.1.
In my oppinion the Bismarck was the most effective Battleship ever made.
It sunk the Hood within Minutes. And by the way the Bismarck took over 400 Hits of 37 cm shells. But she didnt sink. Thats why i think its the best Battleship ever made, Just watch the documentary hms hood vs bismarck.
@LukaZ0001 Bismarck was an excellent BB, but she wasn't the best or most effective. She was the only BB in WWII that sank an enemy BB, that's her achievement advantage over other BB's in WWII.
She take about 100 hits from 405mm and 350mm guns from RN BB's, but her armor was penetrated on every part, so even she withstand that, she was disabled.
Best BB in WWII was one which had the best combination of artillery, armor and AA suite.
@pramboy09 Hood was proclaimed as a BC, only because she was sunk from an enemy BB. Hood was a WWI era BB, armed with 8x 380mm guns, and armor of 20-350mm.
If Hood was a BC, then how is the Kongo class BB, if she had the same armor, and even lower caliber guns (350mm)?
@m4mihulja absolute rubbish, the kongo were updated to bb standard, from 1927-40 her length increased by 26 ft, funnels reduced from 3 to 2, armour was increased by 50%, pagoda foremasts were built up, torpedo tubes removed, new engines increasing speed to 30kt, displacement increased from 31,720 tons to 32,228 tons not to mention improvements in secondary armament and aa. The hood had hardly any improvements during her life and was still was classed as a battlecruiser by the start of ww2.
@pramboy09 Hood and Kongo class were battleships, because they both had armament and armor larger than 200mm. Hood even had 380mm guns, and Kongo had 350mm, and you're still call Hood a BC, and Kongo a BB?
Hood was just proclaimed as a BC, because RN couldn't face the truth that an enemy BB sank their one.
Hood was a RN flagship, and it was a BB. She wasn't a BC, because it's absolutely impossible for a BC to have 380mm guns, armor 350mm max, and length of 250m.
@m4mihulja what?did you bother to read what I told you what they did with kongo post war to maker a her a bb? the hood was classed as a battlecuiser because she had far less protection than a battleship so she had a speed advantage, read some books on what the royal navy tried and failed to do building hms invincible,queen mary and tiger.
hood was due a major refit to make her bb standard but the war started before they could start, hood has always been classed as abattlecruiser since 1918.
@pramboy09 Upgrading Kongo class does have absolutely nothing to do with BC's and BB's. Hood was also upgraded.
You can't change BC into a BB.
BC is a ship larger than CA, but smaller than BB. Hood and Kongo were almost completely same in armor, armament and speed. In fact, Hood was even stronger in armament and also longer.
@m4mihulja wrong, read some books,kongo which i have already stated had a MASSIVE upgrade from 27-40, you check out her armour compared to hood in 1941.Hood had very small upgrades before ww2 mainly to her secondary armamanet and AA guns she was due to be majorly upgraded and have new engines, superstructure and extra armour added. Hood since 1918 has ALWAYS BEEN CLASSED AS A BATTLECRUISER.It was classed as BC because it lacked armour for speed adavantage as all battlecruisers do.
@pramboy09 Look man, upgrades don't mean SHIT. What really is important are general performances, such as armament, armor and speed.
Again, Kongo and Hood were both BB's due to having both armament and armor heavier than 300mm.
Kongo:
8x 350mm guns, 50-350mm armor, 30kt speed
Hood:
8x 380mm guns, 20-350mm armor, 30kt speed
You need to start THINKING with your head, and making LOGICAL concludes based on FACTS, instead of naive habit like, reading and believing, a.k.a GEEK.
@m4mihulja for christ sake fucken look at what she was classed as when she entered service in 1920 SHE WAS CLASSED AS A BATTLECRUSIER she was never fucken called a battleship it wasn't just made up because the bismarck sunk her she was called a battlecruiser from day 1.
@pramboy09 No, dude. She was never a BC. I don't care what anything says. She was a BB, due to having 380mm guns, armor of 350mm max., and length of 250m. I'm making logical concludes based on facts.
Can YOU answer me this now? If Hood was a BC, then HOW the Queen Elizabeth was a BB, if they had SAME armament, SAME armor, and Hood was even LONGER?
@m4mihulja you have a real cheek to tell me to be logical when all you have done is look at numbers and not the design of the ship!! All british battlecruisers were designed with battleship armament, the british during ww1 had a obsession with battleship armament but with high speed, the british built ships with little armour so they could get the speed, these ships were classed as battlecrusiers, After the war hood was designed similar to this requirement as well as hms renown and repulse.
@m4mihulja hood when she was built was one of the fasterst most powerfull ships afloat, but by 1941 when she encountered bismarck the rest of the world had caught up, modern BATTLESHIP design had meant that modern engines could power a bb to 32kts and still have the armour required, hood still had the same speed and armament to the bismarck but because she was a BATTLECRUSIER she couldn't take the same punishment, she had little armour over her magazines which killed her.
@pramboy09 Hood was a WWI era BB. By WWII, BB's development had advanced, and by 1930's, BB's became heavier, longer, with stronger armament and armor, in contrast to WWI era BB's.
Hood was a BB, I GAVE you hundreds of LOGICAL PROOFS why, while you gave me a few non-sense ones, pal.
@m4mihulja FOR FUCKS SAKE!! you want logical proofs?? your logical proofs are just fucken numbers!!! mine are bc design and FACT! SHE WAS CLASSED A BC WHEN SHE WAS BUILT!! it's not hard to find out this, read a fucken book about it instead of just looking at fucken numbers, there has been guys here trying to explain to you why she was a bc, have you read any of their comments? I would love to know what you think a british battlecrusier is?? by your logic renown and repulse weren't either
@pramboy09 WHAT facts, pal? I didn't heard them. I've just read some non-sense CRAP and IDIOCY from you.
I ask again - YOUR proofs for Hood being a BC, and your comparison of Hood and Queen Elizabeth. I gave you mine proofs, which are the most simplest facts based on logistics.
Hood was a BB, NOT a BC, give me your FUCKING proofs already!
@m4mihulja The basic idea of the battlecruiser is simple; provide a ship with more punch than a cruiser and more speed than a true battleship; speed enough for cruiser task force operations.Achieving this speed required starting with something the size of a battleship, but with fewer main guns, smaller main guns, less armor protection, less range, or some combination.This to make room in a battleship-sized hull for enough machinery to push the huge vessel through the water at cruiser speed.
@m4mihulja There were no below waterline punctures on the Bismarck. The ship sank because the remaining crew scuttled it. The Bismarck was in a 4 on 1 battle with a sevely damaged rudder and was basicly a sitting duck. The best part was it almost won.
@Ajr5691 I didn't say that, dude. I said that Bismarck was destroyed (not sank) by RN 405mm gunfire because her armor was weak to withstand that shells.
But, she wasn't scuttled, bro. She was finished by two HMS Dorsetshire's 620mm Mk-II TT's.
The Bismarck's crew wanted to scuttled her, but torpedoes sank her, before that.
@Gr0mlt801 Wrong, Japanese Optical Gunnery was actually very good, in fact even better than the USN's when it came to Nighttime Fighting.
While i cannot deny that the Yamato's 18.1'' Guns couldn't be used effectively at their Theoretical Maximum Range of 35 Miles, that was only due to the Limitations of the Radar Technology available at the time, and in spite of it her accurate range was still upto 25 Miles, the same as the Bismarck Class, and more than adequate to combat any contempory USN BB.
@Tajphoon In the star wars animated series for the clone wars there was a space ship based off the story of the Bismarck. It was called the malevolence with a secret weapon ion cannon that was commanded by general grievous where it destroyed multiple republic cruisers and was attacking a medical outpost where it was wounded and forced to retreat only to be destroyed just before returning to friendly space.
I'll give you the Hood because of it's long service history, mystique & had the Admeralty left her alone to be modernized & refitted as planned she would have faired better. I'm sorry I just don't get the Graf Spee with all the other ships to choose from during this era you picked a ship that's famouse for not fighting.?. How did the South Dakota's not make this list? If my but was in combat & I couldn't be in an Iowa my next choice would be the mini Iowa's. Cool photo collection though, thanks
@311nonono Yes, I know about ''might'' of Roma, her range and max. pen., but what I also know is that that was never proved in practice, only in theory.
As far as I know is that the M-34 380mm guns had a range of 40km and max. pen. of 460mm, in theory.
But in practice or a.k.a. in battle, the guns proved a range of 30km, and max. pen. of 430mm at 10km.
Iowa's guns had a range of 35km, and max. AP of 450mm at 10km.
Also, about armor, well to be honest, I don't know much about types of armor.
The performance of the 381 mm L/50 Ansaldo 1934 is known and accepted by all leading naval scholars.
In this case I will have to differ from your opinions and stick with the known facts.
I think that regarding the Rome (Littorio Class) we are talking about two different guns.
The main guns on the Roma were known as "381 mm L/50 Ansaldo 1934" and NOT the "380 mm M-34" as you quote, so whatever statistics you are looking at is for a different gun.
@311nonono No, you got that wrong. I call them M-34 because it's an abbreviation of Model 1934 Ansaldo L-50. I told you that before.
I see that you don't like when someone ''spits'' at the Roma class. I guess you're Italian. I'm just saying only that 380mm guns from Roma class weren't as powerful as they're described.
In battles of Cape Matapan and Sparivento as an example, those guns never achieved range of 40km and that AP.
35km and 430mm max. AP were their best gun performances.
If your sources definitely say 380mm then it is a different gun, period.
Proved in battle?
Does that mean they have to have hit something at 43km? Otherwise it's only theory!
Is this a new definition for range?
If this is what you assert, then you can put Yamato, Iowa and every other ship in this "proved in battle theory" because the longest hit was 26,400yards.
@311nonono However, I can give you my proof - Book called ''Battleships'' author Peter Hore (UK), my estimation - 90% objective and true, page 246:
''The guns of Roma class were 380mm Model 1934 Ansaldo, rather than 405mm guns, which were permitted by the Washington treaty. However, they were 50. cal long guns, capable, in THEORY, a range of 42km and armor penetration of 450mm at 10km.''
Those guns never achieved 40km range in practice shooting.
Looking back, a month, at my prior posts on this video. I had previously supplied you with multiple evidentiary references(including books), please refer back to them, without me having to do a deja-vu.
You should inform yourself about armor quality, because between the top and lowest armor quality, there was a 25% difference. On a 20cm armor plate that is a 5cm difference.
If you still hold to you data sources, please state these sources.
@311nonono About proofs - books and encyclopedias are the most reliable source, but that doesn't mean that they're 100% true.
Not EVERYTHING that I've learnt through 15 years of studying about WWII and military is stored in one book. That would be crazy. Half of things that a man learnt about something through his life, were a a long ago (depends how old he is), and half of those sources are gone in hell by now.
@311nonono I think that Bismarck is better than K. George V due to the fact that Bismarck had 380mm 50. cal. guns, while the K. George had 350mm 45. cal. guns.
Bismarck's max. AP was about 430mm at 10km, as far as I know, and K. George's was 390mm at 10km.
Also, Bismarck was 5 times tougher ship than K. George and J. Bart, because she was longer and heavier, which means that she is harder to sink.
And, the Richeleu had tight firing arc, which isn't good for a BB, because she isn't so fast.
And whats with the word BITER is that slang in the thrid world.MAYBE YOUR IGNORANT FAMILY CAN TEACH YOU HOW TO TALK UNLESS THEY CAN'T OR WERE LIKE I SAID BEFORE KILLED LIKE RODENTS LOL
@crystalandjoel123 How did you idiot, fallen to the deepest level of misery and idiocy, when you're using my OWN insults against ME, and the now you're talking that ''I have childish insults''
HOW LAME.
I won't lose my time debating a total IDIOT like you. Yes, you heard me. From now on You can reply to yourself, but, oh yes, you'll be kicked in a few hours.
@m4mihulja You are questioning me, a citizen of country with a proud tradition of naval history and a naval historian. What naval history does the Croatia have? Mmm, sorry it doesn't have one!
Some people just don't have a clue of whats going on.,The japs have been the first to realize the aircraft carrier was the future of naval warfare.But the USN defined the concept by establishing the FAST CARRIER TASK FORCE IN 1943.AND it was the British who were the first to launch the first all-aircraft ship-to-ship naval attack in history at TARANTO,and which the japs study the attack used ideas from this for their attack on pearl harbour,BISMARCK SUNK BY CARRIER PLANES.
@crystalandjoel123 m4 is just a total fuckwit mate. I aint responding to his shit, poorly informed comments again. Just let him wank over his 'My first Warship' books and let him believe his bullshit.
@crystalandjoel123, @admiraldma Now, you listen to ME you DOUBLE-SHIT. YOU two are gonna FLY outta here VERY soon, you little SON OF A BITCHES.
YOU didn't make a single FUCKING reply to any of my comments, and YOU didn't give a SINGLE fact or logical conclude to support you opinion, you little DUMBFUCKS.
YOU and your lying dude, thinks that you're the most ''smartest'' people on earth.
I'm sorry that I have to disappoint you, little SQUASHED ROACHES.
@admiraldma YOU two are a prime example of how a TOTAL ASSHOLES should look like,debating VERY arrogant, and stupid, just due to the fact that they can't face the TRUTH, they don't have ANY facts or proofs which could support you WORTHLESS idiotic opinion.
Both of you are, complete WASTE of debating, a two little kids who aren't WORTH of even beating.
I guess your family consisted of COMPLETE RETARDS didn't taught you BITERS nothing.
@m4mihulja YOUR one to talk you keep dreaming DOUCHBAG.You never reply on peoples comments and when you do there eithier insults or bullsit theorys that you made up,because your so ignorant to facts.SO HAVE FUN LIVING IN YOUR THIRD WORLD UTOPIA ,YOU LITTLE RAT.AND IF IN WASEN,T FOR THE FREE WORLD YOUR MOTHER AND FAMILY WOULD HAVE BEEN IN A CONCENTRATION CAMP USED AS SLAVES THEN GASED AND BURNT.THEN DUMPED IN A UNMARKED GRAVE.ITS LIKE KILLING RODENTS
@m4mihulja You really are a twat. I DID respond with facts. Alaska class were BC's NOT BB's, FACT. Iowa class WERE designed as fast escorts for the carrier groups. FACT. Montana class were the ships meant to counter the Yamato class. FACT. You STILL dont know the difference between a BB and a BC do you. When you reach puberty you might learn it!! Goodbye ignoramis!!
@admiraldma Speaking of ignorance. Montana Classes Never made it into Prototype level and you even dare say they could counter Yamato class BB's? The pathetic Ship Would have Wielded The stupid yankee all-lies 16" That Failed To sink the IJN Kirishima With 22 shells Hitting in in guadal canal. Oh yes. The duel Where TWO south dakota classes Were thrashed by a Kongo Class BB dating back to 1914. lol. The US navy is a joke
@dividednations44 Completely true. The USN is a bunch of incompetent, stupid and non-sense idiots.
They built no more than 20 new WWII 50,000t heavy BB's, and only 2 of the saw an enemy ship. Others were acting a movie start of the USN for their propaganda jokes, without achieving anything.
And today, they're giving excuses, ''For escort fast CV force'' a.k.a. My ass. The people aren't so naive to smoke that kind of crap.
Friend, looks like we have defeated those morons here.
FAST BATTLESHIP-is distinguished from a battlecruiser in that it would have been expected to be able to engage hostile ships in sustained combat on EQUAL terms.BATTLECRUISERS-designed for engaging cruisers, scouting,hit and run flank attacks using speed to avoid fighting battleships, not entended to join battle with battleships. can't resist effects of guns similar to those it carries.BATTLESHIPS CAN. POCKET BATTLESHIPS THEY ARE ARMOURED CRUISERS.like in ww1,there in a class of there own
@Gromit801 Let's put that simple for you - Iowa looses because her guns are just too WEAK to even scratch the Yamato, and also her armor to withstand Yamato's shells, while the Yamato's guns can penetrate EVERY part of her.
If that isn't defeat, I really don't know what is then...
@m4mihulja My, you're quite the imbecile aren't you! The Yamato or Musashi would be taken out by an Iowa Class. No doubt. The different in range is maybe a few miles. The 16"/50's CAN, and have been proven to penetrate armor such as the Yamato. And the US fire control and radar is a magnitude of order better than anything the Japanese had after 1942.
@Gr0mlt8o1 Don't get me wrong though, i'm not saying the Iowa Class was a poor design or anything, just out of her league, in the same way HMS Renown was no match for the Bismarck (which is why she was not employed in the RN's Final Engagement of the latter Ship).
I also don't think the Iowa's should be in this Video, as the USN's New York / Colorado /Nevada /North Carolina (and so on) Classes saw considerably more Enemy Action then the Iowa's in WW2, including action against IJN Capital Ships.
@m4mihulja OH REALLY have me kicked off this site WHY because I know what im talking about, unlike you who doesn't even know the difference between a battlecruiser and a battleship. looking at all the comments posted it seems that your the laughing stalk, and try to clean the floor with me you don't know shit you get your facts from cracker jack boxes you just what me off this site because your NO MATCH FOR ME, OR ANY ONE ELSE. TO EVERYONE OUT THERE ITS TIME TO DISPOSE OF m4mihulja
You will fly outta here sooner or later, it doesn't matter. What really is matter is that you and your lying friends, a.k.a. prime examples of how a brainwashed fools should look like, thinking that you know everything, and everyone else how don't thinks that way is dumb.
News for YOU, little scum - YOU're one hell of a DEFORMED IDIOT. You're subjective, you don't know ANYTHING at all, you just LIE and you're provocative. I would never be like you.
@m4mihulja Agreed, they were both impressive Capital ships, just in Different Categories to each other, Yamato being a Super-Battleship* (the ultimate expression of the Battleship's core attributes of Firepower & Armor). The Iowa being a Fast-Battleship* like the Bismarck & Vittorio Veneto classes (basically a Battleship but with relatively thin armor except in the most Vital Areas).
I Have to admit though her 18.1'' Guns Theoretical Max Range was 35 Miles, but lacked a suitable radar for this.
@Gromlt8o1 Wrong, Speed is useless if your Shells cannot Inflict Serious Damage on the Enemy Ship.
The Iowa's 16'' Shells couldn't Penetrate the Yamato's Belt or Deck Armor (as she was Designed to be protected against the very 18.1'' Guns she was armed with), the Yamato Class Super-Battleships as compared could Penetrate EVERY Part of the Iowa's (which as "Fast-Battleships" were only sightly above Battlecruiser levels of Armor).
Put Simply: In Ship to Ship Combat, the Yamato's had no Equal.
You're very wrong or subjective, dude. Speed means nothing, due to the fact that shells are faster than ship engine, speed is only good for evading torpedoes.
Also, Iowa didn't have any ''superior fire control'', she had usual BB radar, optics and rangefinders as every BB in WWII.
@m4mihulja Speed is everything, considering the gunnery on the Yamato sucked like a tornado. From the North Carolina class onwards, any US battleship could shoot rings around anything the Japanese had.
@Gromit801 So, where do we start with your humiliation?
''Iowa defeats Yamato'', Iowa defeats your little skinny ass, biter. You're an American. So interesting, I've had many business with stupid and brainwashed Americans like you, and I've noticed how you're all spewing horseshit like,
''Yamato can't hit anything''. Probably because you have no other excuse for such strong gun, so you're selling fog that they ''can't hit'' anything.
Hmm, Interesting Effort, & good Images, however...
The Queen Elizabeth Class has a better claim than any other, in fact they are widely regarded the most Successful Super-Dreadnought Battleship class of all.
Also there were multiple Errors in the Technical Stat's, most Notably HMS Hood's
(her Top Speed was considerably higher than 24 Knots, especially when she first entered service).
The Admiral Graf Spee, was technically not a Battleship, but a interclass hybrid.
@trevortrevortsr2 Well good old "Rodnol" (popular nickname among sailors then) is the one most accredited with Sinking the Bismarck
(in the sense she was the first one to open fire, was the focus of Bismarck's attempts to return fire, & whom's 16'' Shells did the most Damage per shot).
HMS Hood & the Renown Class Battlecruisers would have been best suited to taking out the Graf Spee if they'd been in the South Atlantic that day, rather like the "Battle of the Falkland Islands" during WWI.
@trevortrevortsr2 That said the Design the Nelson Class was a watered down version of (the G3 Battlecruisers) would have been perfect in WWII
(as despite being a 1919 design they outclassed everything the Germans had in WWII, in fact they compare comfortably well against almost every Capital Ship of that war, except the Yamato Class that is).
@TSR1989RN Gosh you boyz take your boats serriously - Yamato was a ship too far that drained resources at a time when Japan could have done with a decent tank - my dad was on the Eribus - a monitor from WW1 - In effectivness - value for mony, time & resources that ship was a great success while the Yamato was a complete flop ( even if it was very impressive)
The Japanese in the 20's & 30's knew they lacked the Industrial Strength to Out-build Britain or the US in Numbers of Ships, so they chose to build Warships of Superior Protection & Armament than their Rivals (they knew for instance that the US couldn't Build Ships of Yamato's Displacement because the Panama canal wasn't deep or wide enough).
...
(As 500 Characters isn't enough to explain this)...
With this Quality over Quantity Mantra in mind, the Japanese should have (in hindsight) worked upon a Carrier Design using the Yamato classes Hull as a base. Rather than pursue the Unryu Class* (which was neither viable in the numbers they wanted to build (17), & based on the then largely outdated Soryu Class).
The Yamato (like the German's KMS Tirpitz) was a useful & powerful ship, but one which due to over-cautiousness & Indecision was hardly ever deployed.
@TSR1989RN Sometimes things become too precious to risk they end up on a pedistal instead of doing what they were intended for - ultimatly ships like Warspite and Rodney were more effecrive than the Yamato or Tirpits - much in life is the same - excess gives deminshing returns once the pride is vectored out
@trevortrevortsr2 In actuality all Battleships /Battlecruisers & yes even Aircraft Carriers have over the years been variably susceptible to overly-cautious or simply just cynical elements of the Military Leadership in charge of them, Tirpitz & the Yamato class were/are simply two of the most well known cases
(During the Battle of Jutland [which Warspite was witness thereto] Jellicoe pulled away rather than give chase to Admiral Sheer's Fleet [due to misplaced fears of a Torpedo Boat attack]).
@TSR1989RN Its interesting we layed a wreath at the Menning Gate in Ypress for the sailers lost at Jutland - the Canadian ambasidor layed a wreath at the same time for their fallen - she asked why we were laying a wreath there and not at Jutland - It caused some amusment when I explained Jutland was the largest sea battle of WW1!
@trevortrevortsr2 I have to admit i thought the Menin Gate in Ypres was purely a Memorial for fallen Army Soldiers, guess the Canadian ambassador must've been under the same misconception, amusing goof to make all the same though.
Have to admit apart from two exceptions (neither WWI period) my family hasn't much of a Naval background, more a Army /RAF one, my great-grandfather & his brother were at the Somme, after effects from shell shock & mustard gas haunted him for the rest of his days.
@TSR1989RN We often spend a few days over Xmass in Ypress - last time we took a football and played on the field where the football match was played in 1914 - it's marked by a cross to the chums - we are great fans of the chrismas truce - Ypress is like a Loweri painting - its just a mornings drive through the channel tunnel from UK
@TSR1989RN they did it was the Shinano which didn't really work purely because it was a battleship hull. lexington and saratoga were the same, they were huge ships but aircraft carriers designs from outset are always superior.
@pramboy09 Not quite. The Lexington Class Carriers weren't Purpose built Carriers, but built from Battlecruiser Hulls, just like the Japanese Carrier Akagi*
(former Amagi class Battlecruiser).
I should also (at the risk of being pedantic) point out Shinano was a late war Conversion (not from a dedicated class of Yamato based carriers [the unrealized but better alternative to the Unryu class]), one which was sunk before she had been fully fitted out...
@pramboy09 Well mine was that the IJN should have pursued a Carrier Design using the Yamato's Hull design & proportions as a base, as it would have given them a Airgroup per ship ratio second to none, and would have compensated for their smaller shipbuilding capacity relative to the western powers.
Converting Battleship hulls wasn't always successful, take HMS Eagle or France's Béarn for example, most of the success stories like HIJMS Akagi / USS Lexington or HMS Furious were Ex-Battlecruisers.
... , in particular she (the Shinano) was lacking most of her Watertight Doors & Bulkheads, thus she was unnaturally vulnerable to Submarine Attack at the time, which unluckily (for the IJN anyway) was exactly what happened.
Not quite sure what the number of Battleships we Brits have built has to do with this Subject though, we Brit's built dozens of Battleships & otherwise between the late 1800's & 1922 to maintain a 2/1 Ratio over our next two largest Rivals Combined.
what the flock was your criteria? It wasn't effectiveness or size because you have the Graf Spee, sunk Dec 1939 as 'better' than the HMS Hood,The Italains ran from the thrwat of thee British Queen Elizabeths and the Japanese failed to Bring their battleagons into a real stand up. For the Fnech I'd say the Strasboug was better than Jean bart and the British Queen elizabeths and KGV's were also superior in use to many of these.
@chriso310 ...Then WHY of the name of God did they built a whole new fleet consisted of almost TWENTY BB's!? For what? Propaganda?
Not just Iowa, but also S. Dakota, N. Carolina and Alabama. All of that was 50,000t of completely wasted materials and lives.
The crazy USN designers had also another class of BB's at their mind - Montana class. Hopefully, they managed to ''wake up'' and see the complete waste and idiocy of that project.
@m4mihulja Your figures are SOOO wrong, you obvoiously know jack shit!! USN did not commission 20 new BB's during the war, only the 4 Iowa's. There were 2 North Carolina's and 4 South Dakotas, and these were started BEFORE the outbreak of the pacific war! That makes 6, added to the 4 Iowas, (2 were cancelled) that makes 10! I suppose your an internet warrior that has read a few wiki pages, as apposed to a naval historian like me who had two family members in the RN!!!
But wisely the Montanas were cancelled because they realised the future was carrier warfare. We are all sitting here with the benefit of hindsight. Then they had no idea on how long WW2 would last and no idea about the strength of aircraft. In reality most of the modern WW2 BB's saw no real use (there are a couple of exceptions) and could be considered a waste of money as none of them did anything that really justified thier cost, but that is easy to say 70 years later.
@admiraldma Montana class was cancelled due to fact that already brainwashed with propaganda, the US designers FINALLY realized that the10 50,000t pile of garbage are already TOO much of waste, that they should build new CV class. And thank God, they were right.
Iowa was just designed to counter the IJN BB's, but since the new tactics appeared, that ''mighty'' Iowa and her ''never doing nothing'' sisters were acting movie star of the USN, a.k.a PROPAGANDA.
You didn't replied a FUCKING word to that my comments below, about USN BB's. That's only because YOU don't know what to say, due to the fact that you retarded DICKHEAD, don't know anything, as just as I've said, and also you can't face the TRUTH.
Just continue like that, dude - not just that you'll be BURNED like now, you'll end up like a WORM, yes a little provocative worm, that you really are.
@m4mihulja shoot your mouth off as for your comments below the YAMATO, DID NOTHING, IT COULDN'T EVEN DEFEAT TAFFY 3,the jap navy had a advantage for 1 year, because of its SNEAK ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOUR.the japs knew they couldn't go toe to toe with the USN.HISTORY SHOWED THAT.what was it 4 jap carriers lost at midway.USN lost 1,and look at the advantage japan had REALLY GROW UP CHILD ,STOP CRYING AND FACE THE FACTS YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT.AND TRY TO BURN ME YOU DEFORMED WORM,KEEP TRYING LITTLE BOY
For a start Hood had a top speed of 30 knots, not 24! Also, the Deutschland class were NOT Battleship/Battlecruisers. They were over armed heavy cruisers at best, and were originally classified by the Germans as panzerschiff, which means 'Armoured Ship'. If they were Battleships they would be called Schlachtshiff! It is a common error, caused mainly by the British dubbing them 'Pocket battleships', a silly and VERY innacurate name. Even the Germans re classed them as Heavy cruisers!
the British gave their battlecruisers the same guns as true battleships, gaining speed by sacrificing armor and perhaps number of guns. The German battlecruisers, meanwhile, generally had true battleship armor and smaller-caliber guns.distinguishing factor between battleship and battlecruiser is that the former can resist the effects of guns similar to those it carries, at least in the "citadel.Thats why you can't classify ships of this period by there gun size
@crystalandjoel123 Wahey!!, someone who knows what they are talking about. Well done mate, someone who understands the difference between Battleship and Battlecruiser!!
As far as I know, you're the only ''black dot on white paper'', left here, or a.k.a. only dulling disease causing heavy doses of laugh, and fast WC call.
Your friends, your beloved liars were kicked out of here. And looks like that you were missed by Tajphoon's Hand of justice...
Don't worry...
Either you will join your friends in flying outta here, or I'll clean the floor with you, with no problem...he,he
One last thing. The Admiral Graf Spee really shouldn't be here. Those ships in that class were glorified heavy cruisers. The Japanese Navy had heavy cruisers that were bigger and faster than this class.
Also while the Tennessee class of Battleships did see their share of action in WWII you would have done better giving the North Carolina class the spot. Both ships in this class saw numerous engagements off of Guadalcanal and the Washington was the only US Battleship in WWII to sink an enemy Battleship, the Kirishima.
Yamato at no.1 get real. The only time she ever fired her main guns at any US warships was at the Battle of Leyte(Battle off Samar). She fired a few salvo's at an escort carrier and several destroyer escorts. One of the US destroyer escorts fired a salvo of 4 torpedo's at her causing her to change course to elude them and she never did rejoin the battle. Her sister ship Musashi never did anything great either. Both ships biggest war efforts were being heavily armored troop transports.
@Kosh105 I must tell you that I really hate when people think that way about Yamato as you do. I had debate with people like you and I found that they're DAMN wrong.
Answer me this one, please:
If you think that Yamato didn't do anything in the 4 years of war, why didn't you mentioned Iowa class, which is probably the most useless 50,000t pile of steal ever made in the entire history.
They're in use even today and they fought in - WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and Gulf War, where they did NOTHING.
@m4mihulja youre fucking retarded the iowa class is THE MOST decorated class of battleships EVER they sunk 1/4 of the imperial navy and shelled the shit out of islands like peleliu, iwo jima, and guadal canal allowing the US to continue its island hopping campaign, in korea and vietnam they were bases for cruise missiles and long distance shelling and also evacuated 100,000 koreans from south korea to safety in hawaii and over 1,000,000 koreans are descendants of those rescued.
The Iowa class were probably the most worthless thing ever made in the ENTIRE history.
Their role was to go up against IJN BB's with their powerful armament of 9x 405mm, and armor of 500mm max., but since the USN 11 CV's, and 20 NEW BB's chickened against two Yamato's, the Iowa is written in history as a complete waste of materials and lives, used only for bombarding shores.
@m4mihulja why was the iowa class a waste of resources? because the time of battleships was finally over because of the carriers or wasn't it just a good compromise concerning invested material?
a iowa class could be compared to the bismarck class or not?
@Chriso310 Just due to the one simple reason dude - Aircraft carriers. The IJN's main admiral, Isorruku Yamamoto invented the new tactic, very effective and deadly - Carrier strikes. No warship could survive that. Even the Yamato's 200x AA couldn't help her.
So, the USN copied that tactic from the IJN, and started fighting with their carriers, and they realized that it was the most effective way of naval warfare...
@m4mihulja yes because making 8+ battleships to take on two other makes completes sense. You are clearly retarded, since when is bombardng enemy strongholds NOT a good idea are you daft? Bombardment of enemy emplacements saved a hell of a lot of American lives during pacific invasions. During korea and vietnam they shelled enemy cities and there wasnt a damn thing they could do to stop them. So what if they lack significant ship to ship kills the nuclear bomb doesnt have many kills because its
King George V class Battleships
Lion class Battleships
Nelson class Battleships
Queen Elizabeth class Battleships
Royal Sovereign class Battleships
Vanguard class Battleships
Adimiral class Battlecruiser
Renown class Battlecruisers These are the classes of the royal navy's capital ships during ww2.
TNT222100 4 hours ago
RENOWN WAS A BC.BUT I GUESS I WAS READING THE WRONG BOOK.BECAUSE HMS HOOD WAS A LIGHT CRUISER, BISMARCK WAS AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER, THE QE2 CLASS WERE SUBMARINES, AND U-BOATS WERE HEAVY CRUISERS.OH AND THE KGV CLASS WERE DESTORYER ESCORTS.WERE ALL READING THE WRONG BOOKS PEOPLE THESE ARE REAL FACTS.BLEW MY MIND AWAY.LOL
TNT222100 6 hours ago
RENOWN had a length of 750ft.The QE2 Class were 645ft long.And the RENOWN IS A BC JUST LIKE HOOD .PEOPLE can play there numbers game but in the end it just doesn;t add up ,and in the end they lose
TNT222100 12 hours ago
@TNT222100 Renown was a BC? DON'T think so, pal.
Renown was a BB, as SAME as Hood was. Both were BB's, due to having 380mm guns and, armor of 350mm max. The BC COULDN'T have that kind of performances.
People are TOO MUCH reading crap, and buying it, and they DON'T know how to think with their heads and make simple FACTS based on LOGISTICS, which are sometimes better than proofs itself.
m4mihulja 9 hours ago
@TNT222100 that quote came from a website i can't paste,but if you bother to google what is a battlecruiser you will find it easy enough,and that pretty much says what all my books i have on the subject says on the subject, just looking at dimensions means fuck all because all battlecrusiers were supposed to be the same length as a battleship,so they could in the british case still have the same amount of main guns and machinery but less armour than a battleship so they had supeior speed get it?
pramboy09 25 minutes ago
song name?
LeonsKennedy96 13 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Each nation classifies ships to their own specifications. The Admiral-class BATTLECRUISER is a Battlecruiser in the RN, could be called a Battleship in USN sense. But whats on paper, planned and built, is what its called.
But of course, you can always call Hood a BB since you dont wanna accept that its an Admiral-class BC :)
Ausworthar 23 hours ago
Comment removed
Ausworthar 23 hours ago
Comment removed
Ausworthar 23 hours ago
BC HOOD, I MEAN BB HOOD SHOULD HAVE,( UNDER THE DEFINITION OF A BB) BEEN ABLE TO ENGAGE BISMARCK IN EQUAL TERMS AND RESIST THE EFFECTS OF BISMARCKS GUNS TO A RESONABLE DEGREE IN SUSTAINED COMBAT.BUT WHAT HAPPENED,WE'LL BB HOOD LASTED 8 MINS, BECAUSE HOOD WAS A BC. NOT A BB.I WILL SAY IT AGAIN, HOOD WAS BC
TNT222100 1 day ago
Once agian you can't go by size and firepwer EX the RENOWN CLASS BC HAD A LENGTH OF 750FT.THE NELSON CLASS BB HAD A LENGTH OF 660FT,THE KGV LENGTH 745FT.so throw that argument out the window.A BC CAN'T WITHSTAND FIREPOWER EQUAL OR SUPERIOR TO ITS OWN.BISMARCK VS HOOD BOTH ARMED 15INCH GUNS WHO WON REALLY.AND YOU CAN'T USE THE REASON BECAUSE OF HOODS DECK ARMOUR BECAUSE BC'S ARE LIGHTY ARMOURED TO BEGIN WITH.
TNT222100 1 day ago
Yes Hood was a battlecruiser of the Admiral class which was designed during ww1 to counter the german Mackensen class BC.The british gave there BC the same big guns that armed there BB,but weaker armour..It all boils down to the reason behind the concept.EX the G3's were armed with 9 16inch guns speed 32 knots and were intend to be BC.There is a difference between fast BB and BC.And bismarck was vulnerable to 14inch guns under 15,000yds. feel free to comment if you disagree,
TNT222100 2 days ago
@LukaZ0001 You say that, yet the Bismarck was dealt serious damage during the Battle of the Denmark Strait, by the inexperienced crew of HMS Prince of Wales.
A 14'' Shell thereof going all the way though Bismarck's bow, Puncturing her Forward fuel tanks, which reduced her speed, left her with barely enough fuel to make Brest, & made her infinitely more locatable from the air, which a RAF Catalina subsequently did.
Plus the simple fact that her steering was then taken out by "Flying Bicycles" ;)
TSR1989RN 2 days ago
@TSR1989RN ...If you want the most Effective Battleship of all, try
HMS Warspite, she proved her worth many times over during her 30+ year life. From the Battle of Jutland in 1916 (still the Largest single exchange of Naval Firepower in world history), to the many theaters of conflict she participated in during WWII, including when she sank two Italian Heavy Cruisers in a single afternoon.
She was in the Newsreels so often during WWII, her crew were known round the Fleet as "The Moviestars".
TSR1989RN 2 days ago
@m4mihulja You are however mostly correct about the Kongo Class, as they were originally defined as Battlecruisers, but were later redefined as "Fast-Battleships"
(after extensive rebuild work was carried out on all the ships of that class).
Separately: In Firepower & Protection the Queen Elizabeth & Revenge Class Battleships equaled the Bismarck Class, in Firepower HMS Nelson & Rodney outclassed them. Bismarck's only meaningful advantage over any of the aforementioned was her greater speed.
TSR1989RN 2 days ago
@TSR1989RN Bismarck was better than any RN BB. Why?
Bismarck's guns were better, because they were 50. cal. long. All RN were 45. cal.
She also had better secondary and AA armament, in which the RN was very bad. Nelson class didn't even have AA.
She also had better armor than any RN BB, except Nelson class, but Nelson was far smaller and lighter, which means that her thicker armor wasn't worth much.
Bismarck also had far better trained crew, and that was proven.
m4mihulja 1 day ago
@m4mihulja Sorry but as someone who's studied Battleships & Marine History/Engineering in General since childhood i have to disagree on the following:
1: HMS Hood was a "Admiral Class Battlecruiser" (the only one completed due to post war treaties), at no point in her 23+ year life was she ever referred to as anything else.
2: As the David Mearnes Expedition to the Wreck site proved, the KGV Class's 14'' Guns were more than effective against the Bismarck,
3: KGV's Armor was actually thicker.
TSR1989RN 2 days ago
@TSR1989RN I don't care, pal. Hood was a BB, and I gave you proofs why. You didn't. Hood had 380mm guns armor of 350mm max., and length of 250m, a.k.a. BB.
Also, Bismarck's armor was 350mm max., and the 350mm Mk-VII had max. AP of 400mm at 10km, (closest range), and 200mm at at 30km (longest range). That means that Bismarck armor could be penetrated at close range, but not in long range.
If it wasn't Rodney, the King George V would have fate of Prince of Wales.
m4mihulja 1 day ago
4!? 4! 4 The single most destructive ship in history is 4!? Stupid American. Before you say it, I'm Canadian.
Ajr5691 4 days ago
@Ajr5691 Relax, It's just the guy's oppinion. The Bismarck was my favorite on the list too, mostly because I like the legend of it's fate. What's sad is the stupid British commander halted the wreckage rescue party claiming to see a U-boat or something like that leaving all those people to die. I speculate it was probably more of a vengeance for the loss of the hood. It sickens me aswell to see us constantly be called stupid, because if it were true others would be smart enough to stop warring.
okjoek1 4 days ago
@okjoek1 It probably was out of spite all the people died. The German army were the best soldiers for the worst cause. And the Bismarck was the best ship for the wost cause.
Ajr5691 4 days ago
@Ajr5691 Deftinatly true. What song is this anyway? I downloaded it using my youtube to mp3 converter but I can't get a name incase I wanted to credit it incase I ever used it.
okjoek1 4 days ago
@Ajr5691 I think that this video is great and very objective. The only disadvantage here is that Bismarck should be No.3, ahead of Fuso, not No.4.
But, the Bismarck wasn't the ''best WWII battleship''.
m4mihulja 3 days ago
@m4mihulja If it had not been in a 4:1 situation, we would be speaking German. We will never know the possibilities of this great ship because of it's untmely demise.
Ajr5691 3 days ago
@Ajr5691 The Bismarck was far better than any RN BB in time of WWII, because 80% of RN BB fleet were just upgraded WWI era BB's.
Even the new WWII King George V class was weaker than Bismarck, because she had smaller caliber armament, and smaller armor and length.
But, there was no chance that Bismarck defeats USN WWII era BB's, like Iowa class.
m4mihulja 2 days ago
What song is this?
Ajr5691 4 days ago
Bismarck and Tirpitz are No. 1 everyone who has another oppinion has no idea of battleships
LukaZ0001 6 days ago
@LukaZ0001 Why? Just because you're a German, that means that your ship is No.1? No, dude. Everyone thinks that his country ship is No.1. But that's wrong and subjective.
Interesting though, I heard a lot of Americans on You Tube spewing that Iowa is No.1, some Brits spewing that K. George V is No.1, rare Germans spewing that Bismarck is No.1..., but I never heard a Japanese saying that Yamato is No.1.
m4mihulja 6 days ago
@m4mihulja Dude its not because im german.
So sick of people thinkin that.
In my oppinion the Bismarck was the most effective Battleship ever made.
It sunk the Hood within Minutes. And by the way the Bismarck took over 400 Hits of 37 cm shells. But she didnt sink. Thats why i think its the best Battleship ever made, Just watch the documentary hms hood vs bismarck.
LukaZ0001 5 days ago
@LukaZ0001 Bismarck was an excellent BB, but she wasn't the best or most effective. She was the only BB in WWII that sank an enemy BB, that's her achievement advantage over other BB's in WWII.
She take about 100 hits from 405mm and 350mm guns from RN BB's, but her armor was penetrated on every part, so even she withstand that, she was disabled.
Best BB in WWII was one which had the best combination of artillery, armor and AA suite.
And that was Yamato.
m4mihulja 5 days ago
@m4mihulja the bismarck wasn't the only bb to sink a bb i ww2,though technically the hood was a battlecrusier, check out the pacifc theatre
pramboy09 4 days ago
@pramboy09 Hood was proclaimed as a BC, only because she was sunk from an enemy BB. Hood was a WWI era BB, armed with 8x 380mm guns, and armor of 20-350mm.
If Hood was a BC, then how is the Kongo class BB, if she had the same armor, and even lower caliber guns (350mm)?
m4mihulja 3 days ago
@m4mihulja absolute rubbish, the kongo were updated to bb standard, from 1927-40 her length increased by 26 ft, funnels reduced from 3 to 2, armour was increased by 50%, pagoda foremasts were built up, torpedo tubes removed, new engines increasing speed to 30kt, displacement increased from 31,720 tons to 32,228 tons not to mention improvements in secondary armament and aa. The hood had hardly any improvements during her life and was still was classed as a battlecruiser by the start of ww2.
pramboy09 2 days ago
@pramboy09 Hood and Kongo class were battleships, because they both had armament and armor larger than 200mm. Hood even had 380mm guns, and Kongo had 350mm, and you're still call Hood a BC, and Kongo a BB?
Hood was just proclaimed as a BC, because RN couldn't face the truth that an enemy BB sank their one.
Hood was a RN flagship, and it was a BB. She wasn't a BC, because it's absolutely impossible for a BC to have 380mm guns, armor 350mm max, and length of 250m.
m4mihulja 2 days ago
@m4mihulja what?did you bother to read what I told you what they did with kongo post war to maker a her a bb? the hood was classed as a battlecuiser because she had far less protection than a battleship so she had a speed advantage, read some books on what the royal navy tried and failed to do building hms invincible,queen mary and tiger.
hood was due a major refit to make her bb standard but the war started before they could start, hood has always been classed as abattlecruiser since 1918.
pramboy09 1 day ago
@pramboy09 Upgrading Kongo class does have absolutely nothing to do with BC's and BB's. Hood was also upgraded.
You can't change BC into a BB.
BC is a ship larger than CA, but smaller than BB. Hood and Kongo were almost completely same in armor, armament and speed. In fact, Hood was even stronger in armament and also longer.
You still think that Hood is a BC?
m4mihulja 1 day ago
@m4mihulja wrong, read some books,kongo which i have already stated had a MASSIVE upgrade from 27-40, you check out her armour compared to hood in 1941.Hood had very small upgrades before ww2 mainly to her secondary armamanet and AA guns she was due to be majorly upgraded and have new engines, superstructure and extra armour added. Hood since 1918 has ALWAYS BEEN CLASSED AS A BATTLECRUISER.It was classed as BC because it lacked armour for speed adavantage as all battlecruisers do.
pramboy09 1 day ago
@pramboy09 Look man, upgrades don't mean SHIT. What really is important are general performances, such as armament, armor and speed.
Again, Kongo and Hood were both BB's due to having both armament and armor heavier than 300mm.
Kongo:
8x 350mm guns, 50-350mm armor, 30kt speed
Hood:
8x 380mm guns, 20-350mm armor, 30kt speed
You need to start THINKING with your head, and making LOGICAL concludes based on FACTS, instead of naive habit like, reading and believing, a.k.a GEEK.
m4mihulja 1 day ago 2
@m4mihulja for christ sake fucken look at what she was classed as when she entered service in 1920 SHE WAS CLASSED AS A BATTLECRUSIER she was never fucken called a battleship it wasn't just made up because the bismarck sunk her she was called a battlecruiser from day 1.
pramboy09 1 day ago
@pramboy09 No, dude. She was never a BC. I don't care what anything says. She was a BB, due to having 380mm guns, armor of 350mm max., and length of 250m. I'm making logical concludes based on facts.
Can YOU answer me this now? If Hood was a BC, then HOW the Queen Elizabeth was a BB, if they had SAME armament, SAME armor, and Hood was even LONGER?
m4mihulja 14 hours ago
@m4mihulja you have a real cheek to tell me to be logical when all you have done is look at numbers and not the design of the ship!! All british battlecruisers were designed with battleship armament, the british during ww1 had a obsession with battleship armament but with high speed, the british built ships with little armour so they could get the speed, these ships were classed as battlecrusiers, After the war hood was designed similar to this requirement as well as hms renown and repulse.
pramboy09 23 hours ago
@m4mihulja hood when she was built was one of the fasterst most powerfull ships afloat, but by 1941 when she encountered bismarck the rest of the world had caught up, modern BATTLESHIP design had meant that modern engines could power a bb to 32kts and still have the armour required, hood still had the same speed and armament to the bismarck but because she was a BATTLECRUSIER she couldn't take the same punishment, she had little armour over her magazines which killed her.
pramboy09 23 hours ago
@pramboy09 Hood was a WWI era BB. By WWII, BB's development had advanced, and by 1930's, BB's became heavier, longer, with stronger armament and armor, in contrast to WWI era BB's.
Hood was a BB, I GAVE you hundreds of LOGICAL PROOFS why, while you gave me a few non-sense ones, pal.
m4mihulja 14 hours ago
@m4mihulja FOR FUCKS SAKE!! you want logical proofs?? your logical proofs are just fucken numbers!!! mine are bc design and FACT! SHE WAS CLASSED A BC WHEN SHE WAS BUILT!! it's not hard to find out this, read a fucken book about it instead of just looking at fucken numbers, there has been guys here trying to explain to you why she was a bc, have you read any of their comments? I would love to know what you think a british battlecrusier is?? by your logic renown and repulse weren't either
pramboy09 12 hours ago
@pramboy09 WHAT facts, pal? I didn't heard them. I've just read some non-sense CRAP and IDIOCY from you.
I ask again - YOUR proofs for Hood being a BC, and your comparison of Hood and Queen Elizabeth. I gave you mine proofs, which are the most simplest facts based on logistics.
Hood was a BB, NOT a BC, give me your FUCKING proofs already!
m4mihulja 9 hours ago
@m4mihulja The basic idea of the battlecruiser is simple; provide a ship with more punch than a cruiser and more speed than a true battleship; speed enough for cruiser task force operations.Achieving this speed required starting with something the size of a battleship, but with fewer main guns, smaller main guns, less armor protection, less range, or some combination.This to make room in a battleship-sized hull for enough machinery to push the huge vessel through the water at cruiser speed.
pramboy09 36 minutes ago
@m4mihulja There were no below waterline punctures on the Bismarck. The ship sank because the remaining crew scuttled it. The Bismarck was in a 4 on 1 battle with a sevely damaged rudder and was basicly a sitting duck. The best part was it almost won.
Ajr5691 4 days ago
@Ajr5691 I didn't say that, dude. I said that Bismarck was destroyed (not sank) by RN 405mm gunfire because her armor was weak to withstand that shells.
But, she wasn't scuttled, bro. She was finished by two HMS Dorsetshire's 620mm Mk-II TT's.
The Bismarck's crew wanted to scuttled her, but torpedoes sank her, before that.
m4mihulja 3 days ago
@LukaZ0001 YES!
Ajr5691 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What?
This video might be a joke.
Do you know something about ships?
enigmaticoconde 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What?
This video might be a joke.
Do you know something about ships?
enigmaticoconde 1 week ago
@Gr0mlt801 Wrong, Japanese Optical Gunnery was actually very good, in fact even better than the USN's when it came to Nighttime Fighting.
While i cannot deny that the Yamato's 18.1'' Guns couldn't be used effectively at their Theoretical Maximum Range of 35 Miles, that was only due to the Limitations of the Radar Technology available at the time, and in spite of it her accurate range was still upto 25 Miles, the same as the Bismarck Class, and more than adequate to combat any contempory USN BB.
TSR1989RN 1 week ago
@Gromit801 Yamato's Type-94 460mm guns had a range of 40km and max. AP with Type-91 shell 510mm, and with Type-1 APS shell 560mm.
Iowa's Mk-7 405mm scrap had a range of 35km (5km less), and max. AP with M1 shell 450mm. (Iowa had no APS shell at the time of WWII).
Yamato's armor was 400-700mm at vital parts, which couldn't be penetrated by her own 460mm guns at 20km.
In contrast, Iowa's max. armor was 500mm, at it could be easily pen. by Yamato's shells at even 30km.
So, you're,
BURNED.
m4mihulja 1 week ago 4
what is that song ?
MRlaikiucheung 1 week ago
er geht von größe aus sonst wer die bismarck auf nummerro 1
lanomatomomo 1 week ago
yamato......
TheNIHONNJINN 1 week ago
Bismarck should be 2nd place..
MECHcore 1 week ago
where is the tirpiz???
wo ist die Tirpiz???
stiffmaster6661 1 week ago
@stiffmaster6661 lol...
Tripitz is the same class as the Bismarck.
Tajphoon 1 week ago 3
@Tajphoon In the star wars animated series for the clone wars there was a space ship based off the story of the Bismarck. It was called the malevolence with a secret weapon ion cannon that was commanded by general grievous where it destroyed multiple republic cruisers and was attacking a medical outpost where it was wounded and forced to retreat only to be destroyed just before returning to friendly space.
okjoek1 4 days ago
avrei visto meglio la nelson al posto della Fuso e la Nagato al posto della Graf Spee.
grezzo68 1 week ago
I'll give you the Hood because of it's long service history, mystique & had the Admeralty left her alone to be modernized & refitted as planned she would have faired better. I'm sorry I just don't get the Graf Spee with all the other ships to choose from during this era you picked a ship that's famouse for not fighting.?. How did the South Dakota's not make this list? If my but was in combat & I couldn't be in an Iowa my next choice would be the mini Iowa's. Cool photo collection though, thanks
hmshavok 1 week ago
1 Yamato
2 Roma
3 Iowa
4 King George V
5 Jean Bart
6 Bismark
311nonono 1 week ago
@311nonono Can I maybe ask something?
Why do you think that Roma is better than Iowa, and that King George V and J. Bart are better than Bismarck?
m4mihulja 1 week ago
@m4mihulja
The Roma’s (Littorio) guns had more range and penetration than Iowa.
It was less but close to Iowa’s speed.
It’s Terni armor was toughest armor of WWII. It was 5% tougher than British armor and more than 17% tougher than US grade A armor.
Roma’s had the only belt that could compare to Yamato’s.
Roma could penetrate Iowa’s belt to vitals out to 23,000yards.
But Iowa could only penetrate Roma’s belt to vitals out to 15,000yards.
That’s a huge immunity zone.
311nonono 1 week ago
@311nonono Yes, I know about ''might'' of Roma, her range and max. pen., but what I also know is that that was never proved in practice, only in theory.
As far as I know is that the M-34 380mm guns had a range of 40km and max. pen. of 460mm, in theory.
But in practice or a.k.a. in battle, the guns proved a range of 30km, and max. pen. of 430mm at 10km.
Iowa's guns had a range of 35km, and max. AP of 450mm at 10km.
Also, about armor, well to be honest, I don't know much about types of armor.
m4mihulja 1 week ago
@m4mihulja
The performance of the 381 mm L/50 Ansaldo 1934 is known and accepted by all leading naval scholars.
In this case I will have to differ from your opinions and stick with the known facts.
I think that regarding the Rome (Littorio Class) we are talking about two different guns.
The main guns on the Roma were known as "381 mm L/50 Ansaldo 1934" and NOT the "380 mm M-34" as you quote, so whatever statistics you are looking at is for a different gun.
311nonono 1 week ago
@311nonono No, you got that wrong. I call them M-34 because it's an abbreviation of Model 1934 Ansaldo L-50. I told you that before.
I see that you don't like when someone ''spits'' at the Roma class. I guess you're Italian. I'm just saying only that 380mm guns from Roma class weren't as powerful as they're described.
In battles of Cape Matapan and Sparivento as an example, those guns never achieved range of 40km and that AP.
35km and 430mm max. AP were their best gun performances.
m4mihulja 1 week ago
@m4mihulja
If your sources definitely say 380mm then it is a different gun, period.
Proved in battle?
Does that mean they have to have hit something at 43km? Otherwise it's only theory!
Is this a new definition for range?
If this is what you assert, then you can put Yamato, Iowa and every other ship in this "proved in battle theory" because the longest hit was 26,400yards.
311nonono 1 week ago
@311nonono However, I can give you my proof - Book called ''Battleships'' author Peter Hore (UK), my estimation - 90% objective and true, page 246:
''The guns of Roma class were 380mm Model 1934 Ansaldo, rather than 405mm guns, which were permitted by the Washington treaty. However, they were 50. cal long guns, capable, in THEORY, a range of 42km and armor penetration of 450mm at 10km.''
Those guns never achieved 40km range in practice shooting.
m4mihulja 1 week ago
@m4mihulja
Looking back, a month, at my prior posts on this video. I had previously supplied you with multiple evidentiary references(including books), please refer back to them, without me having to do a deja-vu.
You should inform yourself about armor quality, because between the top and lowest armor quality, there was a 25% difference. On a 20cm armor plate that is a 5cm difference.
If you still hold to you data sources, please state these sources.
311nonono 1 week ago
@311nonono About proofs - books and encyclopedias are the most reliable source, but that doesn't mean that they're 100% true.
Not EVERYTHING that I've learnt through 15 years of studying about WWII and military is stored in one book. That would be crazy. Half of things that a man learnt about something through his life, were a a long ago (depends how old he is), and half of those sources are gone in hell by now.
m4mihulja 1 week ago
@m4mihulja
Bismark had an excellent system of spaced armor, which is why the Brits had a hard time trying to sink it even after it was dead in the water.
But the amount of armor was much less than both Jean Bart and King George. I am not crazy about Jean Bart’s quadruple turrets.
I am less confident in terms of these three and their ranking as I am about the first three.
They are very close and I can see Bismark at 4 considering the fours turrets guns and high rate of fire.
311nonono 1 week ago
@311nonono I think that Bismarck is better than K. George V due to the fact that Bismarck had 380mm 50. cal. guns, while the K. George had 350mm 45. cal. guns.
Bismarck's max. AP was about 430mm at 10km, as far as I know, and K. George's was 390mm at 10km.
Also, Bismarck was 5 times tougher ship than K. George and J. Bart, because she was longer and heavier, which means that she is harder to sink.
And, the Richeleu had tight firing arc, which isn't good for a BB, because she isn't so fast.
m4mihulja 1 week ago
1 yamato
2 iowa
3 roma
4 bismark
5 king george V
6 jean bart
riczen89 2 weeks ago
@riczen89 I agree.
Yamato would be No.1 due to the most powerful guns, armor, range and shells, Iowa would No.2 when looking on such performances.
Bismarck and Roma are almost the same, Bismarck has some advantages over Roma, and opposite, so for me it doesn't matter which of them is No.3.
King George V was also an good BB, I would put her on the 5th place.
And, about Jean Bart - I think she's unnecessarily for this list...
m4mihulja 2 weeks ago
And whats with the word BITER is that slang in the thrid world.MAYBE YOUR IGNORANT FAMILY CAN TEACH YOU HOW TO TALK UNLESS THEY CAN'T OR WERE LIKE I SAID BEFORE KILLED LIKE RODENTS LOL
crystalandjoel123 2 weeks ago
@crystalandjoel123 How did you idiot, fallen to the deepest level of misery and idiocy, when you're using my OWN insults against ME, and the now you're talking that ''I have childish insults''
HOW LAME.
I won't lose my time debating a total IDIOT like you. Yes, you heard me. From now on You can reply to yourself, but, oh yes, you'll be kicked in a few hours.
GOODBYE, WRETCH...
m4mihulja 2 weeks ago
@m4mihulja You are questioning me, a citizen of country with a proud tradition of naval history and a naval historian. What naval history does the Croatia have? Mmm, sorry it doesn't have one!
admiraldma 2 weeks ago
@admiraldma What the FUCK, dude!?
Why my country needs to have a ''Naval history'', so I can spoke of it. You're an idiot, pure and simple.
Let me teach you UK scumbag something:
CROATIA was the 3rd most powerful naval force at the time of WWI, as a part of Austro-Hungarian empire, right behind the RN and HSF.
So, don't spew IDIOCY, please. YOUR ''mighty'' RN history is full of sunken and blown-up ships, not just in WWII, but in WWI.
Learn how to store ammo, you UK dickheads.
m4mihulja 2 weeks ago
I wonder if m4mihulja finally knows the DIFFERENCE between battlecruiser and battleship now
crystalandjoel123 2 weeks ago
Some people just don't have a clue of whats going on.,The japs have been the first to realize the aircraft carrier was the future of naval warfare.But the USN defined the concept by establishing the FAST CARRIER TASK FORCE IN 1943.AND it was the British who were the first to launch the first all-aircraft ship-to-ship naval attack in history at TARANTO,and which the japs study the attack used ideas from this for their attack on pearl harbour,BISMARCK SUNK BY CARRIER PLANES.
crystalandjoel123 2 weeks ago
@crystalandjoel123 m4 is just a total fuckwit mate. I aint responding to his shit, poorly informed comments again. Just let him wank over his 'My first Warship' books and let him believe his bullshit.
admiraldma 2 weeks ago
@crystalandjoel123, @admiraldma Now, you listen to ME you DOUBLE-SHIT. YOU two are gonna FLY outta here VERY soon, you little SON OF A BITCHES.
YOU didn't make a single FUCKING reply to any of my comments, and YOU didn't give a SINGLE fact or logical conclude to support you opinion, you little DUMBFUCKS.
YOU and your lying dude, thinks that you're the most ''smartest'' people on earth.
I'm sorry that I have to disappoint you, little SQUASHED ROACHES.
Enjoy in your last minutes XD
m4mihulja 2 weeks ago
@admiraldma YOU two are a prime example of how a TOTAL ASSHOLES should look like,debating VERY arrogant, and stupid, just due to the fact that they can't face the TRUTH, they don't have ANY facts or proofs which could support you WORTHLESS idiotic opinion.
Both of you are, complete WASTE of debating, a two little kids who aren't WORTH of even beating.
I guess your family consisted of COMPLETE RETARDS didn't taught you BITERS nothing.
FUCK you and YOUR mothers who gave birth to you.
m4mihulja 2 weeks ago
@m4mihulja YOUR one to talk you keep dreaming DOUCHBAG.You never reply on peoples comments and when you do there eithier insults or bullsit theorys that you made up,because your so ignorant to facts.SO HAVE FUN LIVING IN YOUR THIRD WORLD UTOPIA ,YOU LITTLE RAT.AND IF IN WASEN,T FOR THE FREE WORLD YOUR MOTHER AND FAMILY WOULD HAVE BEEN IN A CONCENTRATION CAMP USED AS SLAVES THEN GASED AND BURNT.THEN DUMPED IN A UNMARKED GRAVE.ITS LIKE KILLING RODENTS
crystalandjoel123 2 weeks ago
@m4mihulja You really are a twat. I DID respond with facts. Alaska class were BC's NOT BB's, FACT. Iowa class WERE designed as fast escorts for the carrier groups. FACT. Montana class were the ships meant to counter the Yamato class. FACT. You STILL dont know the difference between a BB and a BC do you. When you reach puberty you might learn it!! Goodbye ignoramis!!
admiraldma 2 weeks ago
@admiraldma Did you hear of:
1. Battle of Jutland?
2. Battle of Denmark strait?
3. Battle of the South China sea?
4. Battle of the Java sea?
5. Ever heard what happened in 1939. in Scapa Flow?
Tell me, you UK smartass, how did the ''mighty'' RN go through there?
m4mihulja 2 weeks ago
@admiraldma Speaking of ignorance. Montana Classes Never made it into Prototype level and you even dare say they could counter Yamato class BB's? The pathetic Ship Would have Wielded The stupid yankee all-lies 16" That Failed To sink the IJN Kirishima With 22 shells Hitting in in guadal canal. Oh yes. The duel Where TWO south dakota classes Were thrashed by a Kongo Class BB dating back to 1914. lol. The US navy is a joke
Cya later. ignorintas
dividednations44 1 week ago
@dividednations44 Completely true. The USN is a bunch of incompetent, stupid and non-sense idiots.
They built no more than 20 new WWII 50,000t heavy BB's, and only 2 of the saw an enemy ship. Others were acting a movie start of the USN for their propaganda jokes, without achieving anything.
And today, they're giving excuses, ''For escort fast CV force'' a.k.a. My ass. The people aren't so naive to smoke that kind of crap.
Friend, looks like we have defeated those morons here.
m4mihulja 1 week ago
@admiraldma I totally agree friend,he's living in his own fantasy world.
crystalandjoel123 2 weeks ago
CAREFUL EVERYONE LITTLE m4mihulja is is on his PERIOD
crystalandjoel123 2 weeks ago
FAST BATTLESHIP-is distinguished from a battlecruiser in that it would have been expected to be able to engage hostile ships in sustained combat on EQUAL terms.BATTLECRUISERS-designed for engaging cruisers, scouting,hit and run flank attacks using speed to avoid fighting battleships, not entended to join battle with battleships. can't resist effects of guns similar to those it carries.BATTLESHIPS CAN. POCKET BATTLESHIPS THEY ARE ARMOURED CRUISERS.like in ww1,there in a class of there own
crystalandjoel123 2 weeks ago
@Gromit801 Let's put that simple for you - Iowa looses because her guns are just too WEAK to even scratch the Yamato, and also her armor to withstand Yamato's shells, while the Yamato's guns can penetrate EVERY part of her.
If that isn't defeat, I really don't know what is then...
m4mihulja 2 weeks ago
@m4mihulja My, you're quite the imbecile aren't you! The Yamato or Musashi would be taken out by an Iowa Class. No doubt. The different in range is maybe a few miles. The 16"/50's CAN, and have been proven to penetrate armor such as the Yamato. And the US fire control and radar is a magnitude of order better than anything the Japanese had after 1942.
Gromit801 1 week ago
@Gromit801 Dude, I've beaten and burned many dipshits and worms like you, so you'll be my pleasure.
My estimation is that you lack simple logistics and facts, as many smelly rats like you. But, don't worry, I'll probably burn you within 1 day, pal.
m4mihulja 1 week ago
@Gr0mlt8o1 Don't get me wrong though, i'm not saying the Iowa Class was a poor design or anything, just out of her league, in the same way HMS Renown was no match for the Bismarck (which is why she was not employed in the RN's Final Engagement of the latter Ship).
I also don't think the Iowa's should be in this Video, as the USN's New York / Colorado /Nevada /North Carolina (and so on) Classes saw considerably more Enemy Action then the Iowa's in WW2, including action against IJN Capital Ships.
TSR1989RN 2 weeks ago
@TSR1989RN Friend, I've read things that you have posted, and I must say that totally agree with you.
Yamato was the BEST WWII warship. Iowa was excellent BB, however her guns and armor were ten times weaker that Yamato's.
Yamato had the most important things better - guns, shells range and armor. These things are most important in ship to ship combat.
m4mihulja 2 weeks ago
@m4mihulja OH REALLY have me kicked off this site WHY because I know what im talking about, unlike you who doesn't even know the difference between a battlecruiser and a battleship. looking at all the comments posted it seems that your the laughing stalk, and try to clean the floor with me you don't know shit you get your facts from cracker jack boxes you just what me off this site because your NO MATCH FOR ME, OR ANY ONE ELSE. TO EVERYONE OUT THERE ITS TIME TO DISPOSE OF m4mihulja
crystalandjoel123 2 weeks ago
@crystalandjoel123 You're a complete RETARD.
You will fly outta here sooner or later, it doesn't matter. What really is matter is that you and your lying friends, a.k.a. prime examples of how a brainwashed fools should look like, thinking that you know everything, and everyone else how don't thinks that way is dumb.
News for YOU, little scum - YOU're one hell of a DEFORMED IDIOT. You're subjective, you don't know ANYTHING at all, you just LIE and you're provocative. I would never be like you.
m4mihulja 2 weeks ago
@m4mihulja Agreed, they were both impressive Capital ships, just in Different Categories to each other, Yamato being a Super-Battleship* (the ultimate expression of the Battleship's core attributes of Firepower & Armor). The Iowa being a Fast-Battleship* like the Bismarck & Vittorio Veneto classes (basically a Battleship but with relatively thin armor except in the most Vital Areas).
I Have to admit though her 18.1'' Guns Theoretical Max Range was 35 Miles, but lacked a suitable radar for this.
TSR1989RN 1 week ago
@Gromlt8o1 Wrong, Speed is useless if your Shells cannot Inflict Serious Damage on the Enemy Ship.
The Iowa's 16'' Shells couldn't Penetrate the Yamato's Belt or Deck Armor (as she was Designed to be protected against the very 18.1'' Guns she was armed with), the Yamato Class Super-Battleships as compared could Penetrate EVERY Part of the Iowa's (which as "Fast-Battleships" were only sightly above Battlecruiser levels of Armor).
Put Simply: In Ship to Ship Combat, the Yamato's had no Equal.
TSR1989RN 2 weeks ago
@TSR1989RN Great comment, couldn't agree more.
Navyfieldguy 1 week ago
Too bad the Yamato couldn't hit the broadside of a barn. Except maybe a CVE going at 16 knots/
Gromit801 1 week ago
If the battle had ever happened: Iowa 1 - Yamato 0. Iowa was faster, superior fire control, superior radar, more maneuverable, and faster firing.
Gromit801 2 weeks ago
@Gromit801 If battle had ever happened:
Iowa - blew up and sunk.
Yamato -. lightly damaged.
You're very wrong or subjective, dude. Speed means nothing, due to the fact that shells are faster than ship engine, speed is only good for evading torpedoes.
Also, Iowa didn't have any ''superior fire control'', she had usual BB radar, optics and rangefinders as every BB in WWII.
m4mihulja 2 weeks ago
@m4mihulja Speed is everything, considering the gunnery on the Yamato sucked like a tornado. From the North Carolina class onwards, any US battleship could shoot rings around anything the Japanese had.
Gromit801 1 week ago
@Gromit801 So, where do we start with your humiliation?
''Iowa defeats Yamato'', Iowa defeats your little skinny ass, biter. You're an American. So interesting, I've had many business with stupid and brainwashed Americans like you, and I've noticed how you're all spewing horseshit like,
''Yamato can't hit anything''. Probably because you have no other excuse for such strong gun, so you're selling fog that they ''can't hit'' anything.
Nice joke, but lame. People aren't naive.
m4mihulja 1 week ago
Hmm, Interesting Effort, & good Images, however...
The Queen Elizabeth Class has a better claim than any other, in fact they are widely regarded the most Successful Super-Dreadnought Battleship class of all.
Also there were multiple Errors in the Technical Stat's, most Notably HMS Hood's
(her Top Speed was considerably higher than 24 Knots, especially when she first entered service).
The Admiral Graf Spee, was technically not a Battleship, but a interclass hybrid.
That's my objective Critiqe
TSR1989RN 2 weeks ago
@TSR1989RN Yes I think the old Rodney could have easily taken out the the Graf Spey if it could have cought her : )
trevortrevortsr2 2 weeks ago
@trevortrevortsr2 Well good old "Rodnol" (popular nickname among sailors then) is the one most accredited with Sinking the Bismarck
(in the sense she was the first one to open fire, was the focus of Bismarck's attempts to return fire, & whom's 16'' Shells did the most Damage per shot).
HMS Hood & the Renown Class Battlecruisers would have been best suited to taking out the Graf Spee if they'd been in the South Atlantic that day, rather like the "Battle of the Falkland Islands" during WWI.
TSR1989RN 2 weeks ago
@trevortrevortsr2 That said the Design the Nelson Class was a watered down version of (the G3 Battlecruisers) would have been perfect in WWII
(as despite being a 1919 design they outclassed everything the Germans had in WWII, in fact they compare comfortably well against almost every Capital Ship of that war, except the Yamato Class that is).
TSR1989RN 2 weeks ago
@TSR1989RN Gosh you boyz take your boats serriously - Yamato was a ship too far that drained resources at a time when Japan could have done with a decent tank - my dad was on the Eribus - a monitor from WW1 - In effectivness - value for mony, time & resources that ship was a great success while the Yamato was a complete flop ( even if it was very impressive)
trevortrevortsr2 2 weeks ago
@trevortrevortsr2 I Have to Disagree there, and here's why...
The Japanese in the 20's & 30's knew they lacked the Industrial Strength to Out-build Britain or the US in Numbers of Ships, so they chose to build Warships of Superior Protection & Armament than their Rivals (they knew for instance that the US couldn't Build Ships of Yamato's Displacement because the Panama canal wasn't deep or wide enough).
...
(As 500 Characters isn't enough to explain this)...
TSR1989RN 1 week ago
@TSR1989RN hence also why the british built so many of their battleships.
pramboy09 1 week ago
@trevortrevortsr2 Part 2/2:
With this Quality over Quantity Mantra in mind, the Japanese should have (in hindsight) worked upon a Carrier Design using the Yamato classes Hull as a base. Rather than pursue the Unryu Class* (which was neither viable in the numbers they wanted to build (17), & based on the then largely outdated Soryu Class).
The Yamato (like the German's KMS Tirpitz) was a useful & powerful ship, but one which due to over-cautiousness & Indecision was hardly ever deployed.
TSR1989RN 1 week ago
@TSR1989RN Sometimes things become too precious to risk they end up on a pedistal instead of doing what they were intended for - ultimatly ships like Warspite and Rodney were more effecrive than the Yamato or Tirpits - much in life is the same - excess gives deminshing returns once the pride is vectored out
trevortrevortsr2 1 week ago
@trevortrevortsr2 In actuality all Battleships /Battlecruisers & yes even Aircraft Carriers have over the years been variably susceptible to overly-cautious or simply just cynical elements of the Military Leadership in charge of them, Tirpitz & the Yamato class were/are simply two of the most well known cases
(During the Battle of Jutland [which Warspite was witness thereto] Jellicoe pulled away rather than give chase to Admiral Sheer's Fleet [due to misplaced fears of a Torpedo Boat attack]).
TSR1989RN 1 week ago
@TSR1989RN Its interesting we layed a wreath at the Menning Gate in Ypress for the sailers lost at Jutland - the Canadian ambasidor layed a wreath at the same time for their fallen - she asked why we were laying a wreath there and not at Jutland - It caused some amusment when I explained Jutland was the largest sea battle of WW1!
trevortrevortsr2 1 week ago
@trevortrevortsr2 I have to admit i thought the Menin Gate in Ypres was purely a Memorial for fallen Army Soldiers, guess the Canadian ambassador must've been under the same misconception, amusing goof to make all the same though.
Have to admit apart from two exceptions (neither WWI period) my family hasn't much of a Naval background, more a Army /RAF one, my great-grandfather & his brother were at the Somme, after effects from shell shock & mustard gas haunted him for the rest of his days.
TSR1989RN 1 week ago
@TSR1989RN Whoops, excuse the repetition of "have to admit"
(didn't notice till post-tense).
TSR1989RN 1 week ago
@TSR1989RN We often spend a few days over Xmass in Ypress - last time we took a football and played on the field where the football match was played in 1914 - it's marked by a cross to the chums - we are great fans of the chrismas truce - Ypress is like a Loweri painting - its just a mornings drive through the channel tunnel from UK
trevortrevortsr2 1 week ago
@TSR1989RN they did it was the Shinano which didn't really work purely because it was a battleship hull. lexington and saratoga were the same, they were huge ships but aircraft carriers designs from outset are always superior.
pramboy09 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pramboy09 ''they did it was the Shinano which didn't really work purely because it was a battleship hull''. Explain this please.
Navyfieldguy 1 week ago
@pramboy09 Not quite. The Lexington Class Carriers weren't Purpose built Carriers, but built from Battlecruiser Hulls, just like the Japanese Carrier Akagi*
(former Amagi class Battlecruiser).
I should also (at the risk of being pedantic) point out Shinano was a late war Conversion (not from a dedicated class of Yamato based carriers [the unrealized but better alternative to the Unryu class]), one which was sunk before she had been fully fitted out...
TSR1989RN 1 week ago
@TSR1989RN i wasn't saying that i was commenting to someone who said the japanese should have converted battleship hulls to aircraft carriers.
pramboy09 4 days ago
@pramboy09 Well mine was that the IJN should have pursued a Carrier Design using the Yamato's Hull design & proportions as a base, as it would have given them a Airgroup per ship ratio second to none, and would have compensated for their smaller shipbuilding capacity relative to the western powers.
Converting Battleship hulls wasn't always successful, take HMS Eagle or France's Béarn for example, most of the success stories like HIJMS Akagi / USS Lexington or HMS Furious were Ex-Battlecruisers.
TSR1989RN 2 days ago
@pramboy09 Part 2/2:
... , in particular she (the Shinano) was lacking most of her Watertight Doors & Bulkheads, thus she was unnaturally vulnerable to Submarine Attack at the time, which unluckily (for the IJN anyway) was exactly what happened.
Not quite sure what the number of Battleships we Brits have built has to do with this Subject though, we Brit's built dozens of Battleships & otherwise between the late 1800's & 1922 to maintain a 2/1 Ratio over our next two largest Rivals Combined.
TSR1989RN 1 week ago
what the flock was your criteria? It wasn't effectiveness or size because you have the Graf Spee, sunk Dec 1939 as 'better' than the HMS Hood,The Italains ran from the thrwat of thee British Queen Elizabeths and the Japanese failed to Bring their battleagons into a real stand up. For the Fnech I'd say the Strasboug was better than Jean bart and the British Queen elizabeths and KGV's were also superior in use to many of these.
GravesRWFiA 2 weeks ago
@chriso310 ...Then WHY of the name of God did they built a whole new fleet consisted of almost TWENTY BB's!? For what? Propaganda?
Not just Iowa, but also S. Dakota, N. Carolina and Alabama. All of that was 50,000t of completely wasted materials and lives.
The crazy USN designers had also another class of BB's at their mind - Montana class. Hopefully, they managed to ''wake up'' and see the complete waste and idiocy of that project.
I just don't understand that sort of idiots.
m4mihulja 2 weeks ago
@m4mihulja Your figures are SOOO wrong, you obvoiously know jack shit!! USN did not commission 20 new BB's during the war, only the 4 Iowa's. There were 2 North Carolina's and 4 South Dakotas, and these were started BEFORE the outbreak of the pacific war! That makes 6, added to the 4 Iowas, (2 were cancelled) that makes 10! I suppose your an internet warrior that has read a few wiki pages, as apposed to a naval historian like me who had two family members in the RN!!!
admiraldma 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
JuliusCaesar154 2 weeks ago
@admiraldma Oh, sorry that was meant to send to that lame piece of shit called JuliusCaesar154.
But, never mind. You're also a pile of complete retard, dude...
m4mihulja 2 weeks ago
@m4mihulja Cont.
But wisely the Montanas were cancelled because they realised the future was carrier warfare. We are all sitting here with the benefit of hindsight. Then they had no idea on how long WW2 would last and no idea about the strength of aircraft. In reality most of the modern WW2 BB's saw no real use (there are a couple of exceptions) and could be considered a waste of money as none of them did anything that really justified thier cost, but that is easy to say 70 years later.
admiraldma 2 weeks ago
@admiraldma Montana class was cancelled due to fact that already brainwashed with propaganda, the US designers FINALLY realized that the10 50,000t pile of garbage are already TOO much of waste, that they should build new CV class. And thank God, they were right.
Iowa was just designed to counter the IJN BB's, but since the new tactics appeared, that ''mighty'' Iowa and her ''never doing nothing'' sisters were acting movie star of the USN, a.k.a PROPAGANDA.
You don't know anything.
m4mihulja 2 weeks ago
@admiraldma I think she's mad lol
crystalandjoel123 2 weeks ago
@crystalandjoel123 Also, look at your ''high knowledge'', you PSYCHO
You didn't replied a FUCKING word to that my comments below, about USN BB's. That's only because YOU don't know what to say, due to the fact that you retarded DICKHEAD, don't know anything, as just as I've said, and also you can't face the TRUTH.
Just continue like that, dude - not just that you'll be BURNED like now, you'll end up like a WORM, yes a little provocative worm, that you really are.
BITER.
m4mihulja 2 weeks ago
@m4mihulja shoot your mouth off as for your comments below the YAMATO, DID NOTHING, IT COULDN'T EVEN DEFEAT TAFFY 3,the jap navy had a advantage for 1 year, because of its SNEAK ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOUR.the japs knew they couldn't go toe to toe with the USN.HISTORY SHOWED THAT.what was it 4 jap carriers lost at midway.USN lost 1,and look at the advantage japan had REALLY GROW UP CHILD ,STOP CRYING AND FACE THE FACTS YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT.AND TRY TO BURN ME YOU DEFORMED WORM,KEEP TRYING LITTLE BOY
crystalandjoel123 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What is the name of the song?
MyCoolLego 2 weeks ago
WHY IS Yamato #1 that is not right
ussjohnston1 2 weeks ago
For a start Hood had a top speed of 30 knots, not 24! Also, the Deutschland class were NOT Battleship/Battlecruisers. They were over armed heavy cruisers at best, and were originally classified by the Germans as panzerschiff, which means 'Armoured Ship'. If they were Battleships they would be called Schlachtshiff! It is a common error, caused mainly by the British dubbing them 'Pocket battleships', a silly and VERY innacurate name. Even the Germans re classed them as Heavy cruisers!
admiraldma 2 weeks ago
You are rating Deutschland, Hood, Scharnhorst and Tennisee classes ahead of the British King George the 5th class?
This is not a knowledgable site!
markbruce52 2 weeks ago
what's the name of that first song?
snipestarone 2 weeks ago
Bismarck and Yamato
daybreak4491 3 weeks ago
the British gave their battlecruisers the same guns as true battleships, gaining speed by sacrificing armor and perhaps number of guns. The German battlecruisers, meanwhile, generally had true battleship armor and smaller-caliber guns.distinguishing factor between battleship and battlecruiser is that the former can resist the effects of guns similar to those it carries, at least in the "citadel.Thats why you can't classify ships of this period by there gun size
crystalandjoel123 3 weeks ago
@crystalandjoel123 Wahey!!, someone who knows what they are talking about. Well done mate, someone who understands the difference between Battleship and Battlecruiser!!
admiraldma 2 weeks ago
@admiraldma thank you.and i must say you know your facts as we'll,keep educating the ignorant masses my friend.your doing a great job
crystalandjoel123 2 weeks ago
@crystalandjoel123 Oh, really?
As far as I know, you're the only ''black dot on white paper'', left here, or a.k.a. only dulling disease causing heavy doses of laugh, and fast WC call.
Your friends, your beloved liars were kicked out of here. And looks like that you were missed by Tajphoon's Hand of justice...
Don't worry...
Either you will join your friends in flying outta here, or I'll clean the floor with you, with no problem...he,he
m4mihulja 2 weeks ago
@crystalandjoel123 Cheers, look at his abusive comments now!!
admiraldma 2 weeks ago
for all the one who coment and dont read the title...this is about the greates not who fight more wars etc etc...THNKS FOR THE COMPILATION :)
mauricioalfredo83 3 weeks ago
One last thing. The Admiral Graf Spee really shouldn't be here. Those ships in that class were glorified heavy cruisers. The Japanese Navy had heavy cruisers that were bigger and faster than this class.
Kosh105 3 weeks ago
Also while the Tennessee class of Battleships did see their share of action in WWII you would have done better giving the North Carolina class the spot. Both ships in this class saw numerous engagements off of Guadalcanal and the Washington was the only US Battleship in WWII to sink an enemy Battleship, the Kirishima.
Kosh105 3 weeks ago
Yamato at no.1 get real. The only time she ever fired her main guns at any US warships was at the Battle of Leyte(Battle off Samar). She fired a few salvo's at an escort carrier and several destroyer escorts. One of the US destroyer escorts fired a salvo of 4 torpedo's at her causing her to change course to elude them and she never did rejoin the battle. Her sister ship Musashi never did anything great either. Both ships biggest war efforts were being heavily armored troop transports.
Kosh105 3 weeks ago
@Kosh105 I must tell you that I really hate when people think that way about Yamato as you do. I had debate with people like you and I found that they're DAMN wrong.
Answer me this one, please:
If you think that Yamato didn't do anything in the 4 years of war, why didn't you mentioned Iowa class, which is probably the most useless 50,000t pile of steal ever made in the entire history.
They're in use even today and they fought in - WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and Gulf War, where they did NOTHING.
m4mihulja 3 weeks ago
@m4mihulja youre fucking retarded the iowa class is THE MOST decorated class of battleships EVER they sunk 1/4 of the imperial navy and shelled the shit out of islands like peleliu, iwo jima, and guadal canal allowing the US to continue its island hopping campaign, in korea and vietnam they were bases for cruise missiles and long distance shelling and also evacuated 100,000 koreans from south korea to safety in hawaii and over 1,000,000 koreans are descendants of those rescued.
JuliusCaesar154 2 weeks ago
@JuliusCaesar154 BEST WARAHIP CLASS EVER
ussjohnston1 2 weeks ago
@JuliusCaesar154 You're one hell of a deformed IDIOT, pal.
The Iowa class were probably the most worthless thing ever made in the ENTIRE history.
Their role was to go up against IJN BB's with their powerful armament of 9x 405mm, and armor of 500mm max., but since the USN 11 CV's, and 20 NEW BB's chickened against two Yamato's, the Iowa is written in history as a complete waste of materials and lives, used only for bombarding shores.
YOU are an complete and subjective idiot.
m4mihulja 2 weeks ago
@m4mihulja why was the iowa class a waste of resources? because the time of battleships was finally over because of the carriers or wasn't it just a good compromise concerning invested material?
a iowa class could be compared to the bismarck class or not?
Chriso310 2 weeks ago
@Chriso310 Just due to the one simple reason dude - Aircraft carriers. The IJN's main admiral, Isorruku Yamamoto invented the new tactic, very effective and deadly - Carrier strikes. No warship could survive that. Even the Yamato's 200x AA couldn't help her.
So, the USN copied that tactic from the IJN, and started fighting with their carriers, and they realized that it was the most effective way of naval warfare...
m4mihulja 2 weeks ago 2
@m4mihulja yes because making 8+ battleships to take on two other makes completes sense. You are clearly retarded, since when is bombardng enemy strongholds NOT a good idea are you daft? Bombardment of enemy emplacements saved a hell of a lot of American lives during pacific invasions. During korea and vietnam they shelled enemy cities and there wasnt a damn thing they could do to stop them. So what if they lack significant ship to ship kills the nuclear bomb doesnt have many kills because its
JuliusCaesar154 2 weeks ago