This list sucks, if you put the in this list the Nelson class, where are the Iowa class?, and the Bismarck class?... if you put in this list never completed-desing battleships like the Montana class, where are the Union Sovietic class? a perfect battleship: 10 guns (2x4 + 1x2) X 417mm X 50cal. + heavy shell & 3 rpm / secondary: 18 guns (6x3 in formation hexagonal) X 139mm X 38cal. & high rpm + 28 X 127mm rockets (4 line in 2 rails launcher) + 8 torpedo launcher (2 line un 2 rails)
@DNRaper in addition, anti air guns: 80 × 40 mm/56 cal. Bofors, 50 × 20 mm/70 cal. Oerlikon and 12,7mm light machine guns. Engines: 2 nuclear reactors, Top Speed: 33 knots. sizes: 275 m X 36 m, 12 m draft., armour: 5"-20" inch
Only the Montana got beyond the design stage, it was cancelled when partially built in favor of more aircraft carriers. A fifth Iowa, the USS Kentucky was cancelled when it was 60% complete, it's bow was used to replace the bow of the USS Wisconsin. The Axis ships were delusional dreams, they would have taken too long to build to affect the outcome of the war. Japan could have built 4 carriers and 20 DDs with the time and materials they used up, and those ships were what they really needed!
the yamatos final weight was72,800 tons after her 1944 refit origionaly she was 65,000 tons 1941, and some of these ships were never built only in the designing phase.the N3 had 15inch guns, all european countries but france had 15inch guns france had 16's becaust they thought that they were too powerful
you got yamato's weight wrong!! its 72,000 tons not 65,000 and Super Yamato was around 150, 000 tons (the super yamato one idk if its true but i read it somewhere in a article)
@NFsHarveyp1 72k tons fully loaded! and super yamato wasn't 150k tons.. different sites says different weight...i just seen a website say it was around 90k tons!
I think that Germany should have kept to their originally plan of building the six H-39. They would have been superior to anything the British had and would have been slightly less powerful than the NC, SD and Iowa classes. They would have been 277 m long, 37 m wide, 8 16 inch guns, same secondaries as Bismarck, thicker armor. Displacement of 56,000 tons. 30 knots speed. The Alsace doesn`t really qualify as a super battleship as she would have been smaller, lighter and weaker than the Iowa.
@Daedalus94 The North Carolina's and South Dakota's would have been much smaller and slower than the H39'S. The German gun accurracy would also have been superior. Only Iowa's would have been more than a match for the H39's. Also if Britain had built the Lion's they would have been good match-if not superior [heavier armor] than the H39'S. But if Germany had built the truly colossal H44's then we would all be screwed.
@fyorbane I doubt it mate, both the Japanese A150 and German H44 would have been near useless. Both would have been huge and slow which means easy meat for submarines. Then with such huge guns you would have barely any AA guns as the blast would kill anyone exposed on the deck. Armoured enclosed AA guns would have taken up more space and raised the weight to undesirable levels.
German designs undeniably powerful were inefficient. Meaning too much steel was wasted on parts of the ship that didn't matter. Germany was denied thanks to the treaty of Versailles to test Battleships to destruction so as to innovate and come up with new designs. As a result on a technological standpoint Britain overtook Germany in battleship Design by the 30s while Germany used WW1 designs.
As a result Britain can put more battleship power and capability on the same Displacement.
If you compared British WW2 design to German contemporaries the best example is Bismarck vs the projected Lion class at exactly the same tonnage.
The Lion outguns and out-armors Bismarck yet will keep up speed wise despite having around 20,000 less SHP but a hydro dynamically superior hull compensates for the lower power, which also helps in extending the action radius.
Wanna know what Britain can do with H39's 56,000 tons? (design 38D16 had 12 x 16 inch guns at only 48,000 tons)
Oh, and the V2 is a rocket. Ballistic missile and rocket are the same thing, unless your talking about the physics definition, then anything moving in a parabolic trajectory is a missile(which includes rockets and even bullets, and the v2 followed a parabolic trajectory anyway). Also, the bazooka was not very effective against Panzers, it didn't have a large enough charge. The german anti tank rockets on the other hand were far more effective. America later came out with the super bazooka
Back then bigger was often better, when it came to guns anyway. The Yamato's 18in guns could destroy an American Destroyer with a single shell, and the only American warship that could go toe to toe was the Iowa class. The Iowa class had less armor, but was faster than the Yamato, and because of the way its shells were made, its 16 in was actually about as powerful as the yamato's 18 inch. However, carriers were what brought the Yamato down, and escort carriers at that, not fleet carriers.
be Realistic lol.. the projected speeds were done with the oredictions on how the ships would perform.. and Germany was by far ahead with their Highly efficient Diesel assisted Turbines.. the H44's could outsail the Montana on paper the H43 which was just as large but had smaller 17-18 inch guns was projected to run at 32 knots.. that is as good as the IOWA which was a toy really compared to the H43 design.
@Detoyato true that! not to mention germans made very good guns!...everything germans made was far better than what other countries could make...sure there was a few things other countries made that was better but still germany had the best of the best.....though i doubt you need 20 inch guns 16-18 inch guns would do it but increase the number of guns on the ship..perhaps have 4 turrets armed with 4 guns in each
@edike 4 guns on one turret is efficient but not recomended as it would make it unbelievably complicated and
it suffers from reliability. Range and Speed is what wins it when it comes to battleships. If you can shoot at the oponent and he cant shoot you then your pretty much invulnerable, if he tries to get close then you just use your superior speed to keep him in your range and yourself out of his. perhaps the only advantage of more guns is better hit probability.
And yet they lost the war because the best of the best proved difficult and costly to manufacture and not enough of them (If some or any of the prototype weapons they invented entered production phase and some entered to late to effect the outcome of the war) could be shipped to the front-line WHERE and WHEN IT MATTERED.
Also their best of the best also proved difficult to repair when damaged.
@Detoyato The kriegsmarine was worse surface navy in WW2 no carriers, bismarck, graf spee, blucher all sunk on first mission, tirpitz only fired its guns at weather station, Narvik 10 german destroyers sunk for loss of 2 british destroyers, scharnhorst and gneisenau running away from 1 over age RN battle cruiser HMS Renown, bismarck most overrated warship ever built to WW1 Baden design could not stop 6 obsolete biplanes LOL what a mighty ship
@jers59 As I said... It was meant to slug out against other BATTLESHIP's not planes. The Thinking for the Bissy was a bit backwards at the time as the KM did not really equip the ship well against Aircraft.
That said, the Bissy did last quite well against the Rodney and KGV firing at her from as close as a few KM. At least they knew the Horizontal protection worked. Too bad her AA was hopeless. It survived so well that it SUNK instead of sustaining a Magazine explosion or anything like that.
@edike montana could destroy a h44 so yeah it had better accuarcey better guns better shells and could carry 20 OS2U float planes so it would beat almost anything any day
@killer8479394 idono about montana going head to head with H44...i mean montana had more smaller guns while h44 had less but bigger guns...also germans made very accurate guns!
@killer8479394 that doesn't change anything! if they are few miles each other the torpedoes wont do anything because H44 would just turn...you would have to be close to the ship
The final draft of USS Montana had disappointing top speed compared to the larger BB65 measure 8 design Montana concept that was 70,000 tons std with a whopping 320,000 SHP..
Measure 8 Montana could have hunted cruisers and even destroyers to the ground.
Only the tin can armored German KW45 and KW50 designs would have been faster (Bismarcks with 300,000 SHP and armor so thin they could be sunk by HMS Dorsetshire)
@tamenga88 Montana's top speed was limited because she had all the Armor plating and defenses the Iowa's did without. This would have made her easily a match for any Yamato. Even the Iowa was a match for the yamato. Not because she was a terrible ship but because the Japanese sucked throughout the war in firecontrol. The Iowa's and Montana's would hit far far more times with their 16in than a 18in Yamato carried. Hell the AP shells on the iowa had as good of penetration as the Yamato's.
@killer8479394 lol that is just wrong..... I can hardly believe that with the technology at the time. How improbably efficient were their Turbines to achieve those speeds. Im quite curious on these ships now XD
@Detoyato remember germans were years ahead of everyone else! they invented the 1st rocket V1,V2 they invented the injection seat, panzerfust which was hand held tank buster so you have to think about it that maybe they could have accomplished such thing! i mean look germany made the biggest tank ever made! 188 tons! and the 88mm gun was the best anti air and anti tank gun ...and there are many more things germany made
@edike some corrections. the V1 was a Cruise Missile (not a rocket) the V2 was a Ballistic Missile (again not a rocket) and being big aint really being better (the Tiger and Panther were sufficient) the 88mm Flak was the most versatile gun but it isnt the best. what with the 90 and 94mm of the US and UK back then. And the Ejection seat (Lolled at injection seat XD) but still they were quite advanced in technology even today.
@Detoyato yYeah i know there weren't rockets but i couldn't think of what they were called. And yeah being big means you get spotted easier which aint a good thing! but back in ww2 it was id say good thing if you were big like the tiger or panther but of course have good armor and gun. You didnt really have to worry about being killed by an air to ground missile...
@Detoyato I mean sure you could be killed by airplanes but i dont think it was that easy to be killed by an airplane...WW2 was really the only war where tanks dominated the battlefield...nowdays tanks dont have a chance since 1 dude with a nasty anti tank weapon can killed you! while in ww2 there weren't such weapon that could kill a tank until the panzerfust or bazzoka come out....
@edike but until these weapons were made the only way you killed a tank was with anti tank cannons,tanks,airplanes,arty and crazy soldiers jumping on the tank placing bombs on it.....now i dont know much about the 90mm or 94mm but i know the 90mm could 1 shot a panther...but these guns weren't in use till like 1944? the 88mm was in use against tanks from like 1941 and i was the best anti tank killer
"remember germans were years ahead of everyone else! "
That didn't help the German turbine driven warships in WW2 with the advanced, light weight yet faulty high pressure steam system.
Because of that a diesel propelled U boat can sink more ships in the Atlantic than a German turbine driven heavy cruiser that has to cut it's cruise short due to constant engine problems.
They were advanced but they suck in proper testing and sufficient implementation.
@edike Lets see germany could not build 1 good bombers the allies had Lancaster, halifax, B17, B24< B25, B26, B29 all better then the crap german bombers, DC3 the greatest transport aircraft in WW2 the germans the obsolete in 1939, ju52 one of the ugliest aircraft and failure.Germany could not put 1 aircraft carrier into service US built over 140 including 24 of greatest class of warships in WW2 the Essex class, North Carolina, South Dakota, Iowa class BB all better then the obsolete bismarck
@Detoyato but you forgot these were gonna be made after ww2 so the tech woulde have been higher and if im correct if the montana had went into production it would still be with the US only having nuclear reactors as a power source
@killer8479394 That be a good point. but since war would hasten the development of technology, then every major power in the world would have the technology.
A bigger ship doesn't necessarily mean it's slower.
However a bigger warship requires less engine power in relation to it's displacement compared to a smaller vessel to maintain same speed (Or cover the same distance)
For example a 10,000 cruiser requires 100,000 HP to achieve 33 knots top speed.
A 100,000 ton battleship with approx same hull co efficiency requires about 300,000 HP to achieve 33 knots.
There's no point in arming a battleship with Torpedo tubes especially when you can destroy a battleship using gun alone while on the Horizon.
Far from effective torpedo range.
Interestingly HMS Rodney did use her torpedo tubes against Bismarck but that was after Bismarck was reduced to a crippled and retarded hulk that couldn't fire back.
@tamenga88 Dont be so quick to dismiss the Bismarck... It was after all a faulty WWI era design... (Its Deck armor Scheme is Apalling) but its horizontal Protection was quite ingeneous... It was easily possibly to pierce its 13in belt, but doing that... the shell still needs to traverse multiple armored Decks (yes coz its third Main armored deck was turtlebacked over the ships vitals and meets the belt at its bottom edge) That "Safebox" is what contributed to its longevity in its last battle.
@jers59 I think the Yamato can top them off with being Overrated XD. Seriously over 70,000 Tons. They went a bit overboard with that. I would rather take 2x35,000 ton South Dakotas.
I think the reason the Yamato achieved this fame was simply coz its BIG, well being the BIGGEST helps in securing your place in the hearts and minds of many lol.
@Detoyato Yamato was badly damage by 1 torpedo fired by sub in 1943, The Yamato showing at Samar along with 3 other BB,s +heavy cruisers was embarassement
N3 had it's 3rd turret amidships instead of behind turret 2.
Plus N3 had 18 Inch guns.
The Nelsons are Battleship design O3... Downsized from 48,000 tons to 35,000 tons as a result of the Washington naval treaty and using Battlecruiser design G3 guns.
Its better to have fewer LARGER guns than a lot of smaller popguns.... You get MORE range and more penetration.... The H44 had guns that outranges the Yamato.. and the H44 will also be immune to anything smaller than its own guns. When Hitler found out that the Jap's were planning 20.1 inch guns he re speced the H44 with 21 inch main armaments...
@Detoyato: it is also better to have a realistic plan to finance and build the given superbattleship in a timely manner, and as far as that goes, the H44 was the weakest of the hypothetical ships listed as it required by far the most resources, new technology, new shipbuilding facilities, and time to build....and germany was in no way prepared to build on that scale. in reality, the montana was the only one of these that COULD have been built (though even it would have missed the war)
@22steve5150 I disagree, The H44 was a good Idea in the progress of battle ships. The fact that it still only fielded 8 guns is pretty poor. (2) (2) (2) (2) Where as a ship displacing 130 000 + tonnes would be much better off to field a lighter gun in greater quantity such as the 15 incher (They were on par with 16 inch, Krupp made very good guns) but in a lay out of (4) (4) (4) (4) the 24 guns matched to a proper Radar Controlled firing system would wreck.
@Fischer0Dude you miss the point of my first post. the point is that of all of the projected super-battleships, the german H44 was the least likely to be built and would have had by far the most tech and logistical challenges, hence i consider it not much better than a plan for "space battleship yamato", being as how it had NO CHANCE of ever being built (german industry coundnt support it, no big drydocks, time to develop new tech) whereas a montana class was well within US capability to build
@22steve5150 I would have to agree and disagree, of all the nations that could have built a 100 000 ton + war ship Germany could have had the best chances to build one had the war not turned against her. It would be an illogical waste of precious steel, when Air craft and submarines (at least when in packs) were proving far more useful. But German engineers already were looking at using dredged river basins, floating dry docks ect. It would need some McGuivering, but Germany could hanfle it.
@Fischer0Dude I dont see germany having a better chance at it than the US or japan (US naval production of battleship - carrier size ships was immense, japan already having a 70k ton battleship class to start with, as well as both nations more experienced with operating large numbers of and quickly producing battleships during that time) germany could have tried to build a 140k ton ship but even under the best conditions they likely couldnt have completed it until several years after the war
@22steve5150 Aye that be true.. Industrial power wins wars.. no matter how powerful a war machine is.. its
not much use if you only get a handful of them up against an unending stream of inferior crap.. well still paper wars are still nice.. allows the imagination for destruction to roam.. It doesnt need to be feesible to be good..
I can take a bunch of 6 Inch gunned armed Clevelands and South Hamptons.
Come in close enough range from different directions (An the process two or three cruisers might be lost or disabled in the process) and rapid-fire the H44 rangefinders and fire-control to pieces taking out it's brain.
H44 will still float but she ceased to be an effective fighting unit with her mighty guns having nothing to aim at.
@tamenga88 They can work on Local control but that would be VERY inefficient and considering that the guns take up to a minute to reload (They took less time but this is wartime condition here so it be worse).
I recall Ive seen an even Larger BB design from Hitler's Magalomaniacal mind... Seen it somewhere and it was to have displaced 700,000 tons and about 2000 ft long. It came out of his idea to arm the ship with 8 Schwere Gustav (however you spell that) 800mm guns... CRAZY
Where is the iowa?
Kabob12m 5 days ago
This list sucks, if you put the in this list the Nelson class, where are the Iowa class?, and the Bismarck class?... if you put in this list never completed-desing battleships like the Montana class, where are the Union Sovietic class? a perfect battleship: 10 guns (2x4 + 1x2) X 417mm X 50cal. + heavy shell & 3 rpm / secondary: 18 guns (6x3 in formation hexagonal) X 139mm X 38cal. & high rpm + 28 X 127mm rockets (4 line in 2 rails launcher) + 8 torpedo launcher (2 line un 2 rails)
DNRaper 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DNRaper in addition, anti air guns: 80 × 40 mm/56 cal. Bofors, 50 × 20 mm/70 cal. Oerlikon and 12,7mm light machine guns. Engines: 2 nuclear reactors, Top Speed: 33 knots. sizes: 275 m X 36 m, 12 m draft., armour: 5"-20" inch
DNRaper 1 month ago
Only the Montana got beyond the design stage, it was cancelled when partially built in favor of more aircraft carriers. A fifth Iowa, the USS Kentucky was cancelled when it was 60% complete, it's bow was used to replace the bow of the USS Wisconsin. The Axis ships were delusional dreams, they would have taken too long to build to affect the outcome of the war. Japan could have built 4 carriers and 20 DDs with the time and materials they used up, and those ships were what they really needed!
Bullettube 1 month ago
Wheres the Fuso!
payton34best 2 months ago
should have included the Bismarck
epicwinface 2 months ago
dude r u measuring in long tonnes? cuz ijn yamato is 72,000 tonnes, not 65,000...
ALPHATHEAWESOME 3 months ago
Mine is 14 inch to.
VictumRoManius 3 months ago
if a ship has 14inch guns it can fire over the horison
Takao71534 3 months ago
@Takao71534 Johnny Holmes had a 14 inch trouser gun. He died awhile back, but is still beyond the horizon and many homes around the world! ha ha
Barbarian216 2 months ago
the yamatos final weight was72,800 tons after her 1944 refit origionaly she was 65,000 tons 1941, and some of these ships were never built only in the designing phase.the N3 had 15inch guns, all european countries but france had 15inch guns france had 16's becaust they thought that they were too powerful
Takao71534 3 months ago
N3 and Ge were 1920's plans anyway...
kuluku 4 months ago
Also the last Battleship painting is not H44 but H39.
You forgot Sovietsky Soyuz.... The most OVERBUILT design.
In a sense Project 1047 can also be viewed as a Super warship considering that the biggest vessel Holland built before that was around 7000 tons.
tamenga88 4 months ago
N3 Predates the O3 class which is the Nelsons that you show.
It's not really considered by Historians a WW2 design battleship.
tamenga88 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
pffff ... you forgot the Italian battleship "Rome", which was perfectly capable of destroying the British coffin -.-''
GATTACCIONERODAFOGNA 6 months ago
you got yamato's weight wrong!! its 72,000 tons not 65,000 and Super Yamato was around 150, 000 tons (the super yamato one idk if its true but i read it somewhere in a article)
NFsHarveyp1 6 months ago 6
@NFsHarveyp1 72k tons fully loaded! and super yamato wasn't 150k tons.. different sites says different weight...i just seen a website say it was around 90k tons!
edike 6 months ago
@edike
The Final A-150 Super Yamato design was 70,000 tons standard.
However the design study started out as a 90,000 ton 9 x 20.1 Inch gun version of Yamato that can go fast.
But that was considered even by the megalomaniac Japanese as ridiculously BIG and a hazard to navigation..
tamenga88 4 months ago
@NFsHarveyp1 it was being built but americaa lets say to decied end thier project
ww2guy100 4 months ago
@NFsHarveyp1 Was super yamato ever built and used??
goshoone 1 month ago
@goshoone no but regular Yamato was
NFsHarveyp1 1 month ago
@goshoone The Super Yamato was supposed to have been called Kii.
Named after the name of a region located center of Japan.
In theory, six 510mm guns were planned to be mounted on her, but building itself was canceled due to the desperate need of aircraft carriers.
truthquest 1 month ago
I think that Germany should have kept to their originally plan of building the six H-39. They would have been superior to anything the British had and would have been slightly less powerful than the NC, SD and Iowa classes. They would have been 277 m long, 37 m wide, 8 16 inch guns, same secondaries as Bismarck, thicker armor. Displacement of 56,000 tons. 30 knots speed. The Alsace doesn`t really qualify as a super battleship as she would have been smaller, lighter and weaker than the Iowa.
Daedalus94 7 months ago
@Daedalus94 The North Carolina's and South Dakota's would have been much smaller and slower than the H39'S. The German gun accurracy would also have been superior. Only Iowa's would have been more than a match for the H39's. Also if Britain had built the Lion's they would have been good match-if not superior [heavier armor] than the H39'S. But if Germany had built the truly colossal H44's then we would all be screwed.
fyorbane 5 months ago
@fyorbane I doubt it mate, both the Japanese A150 and German H44 would have been near useless. Both would have been huge and slow which means easy meat for submarines. Then with such huge guns you would have barely any AA guns as the blast would kill anyone exposed on the deck. Armoured enclosed AA guns would have taken up more space and raised the weight to undesirable levels.
MadMilitiaMen 5 months ago
@fyorbane
The H44 would have been capable of screwing with other navies if Sea-power and the submarine wasn't invented.
tamenga88 4 months ago
@Daedalus94
German designs undeniably powerful were inefficient. Meaning too much steel was wasted on parts of the ship that didn't matter. Germany was denied thanks to the treaty of Versailles to test Battleships to destruction so as to innovate and come up with new designs. As a result on a technological standpoint Britain overtook Germany in battleship Design by the 30s while Germany used WW1 designs.
As a result Britain can put more battleship power and capability on the same Displacement.
tamenga88 4 months ago
@Daedalus94
If you compared British WW2 design to German contemporaries the best example is Bismarck vs the projected Lion class at exactly the same tonnage.
The Lion outguns and out-armors Bismarck yet will keep up speed wise despite having around 20,000 less SHP but a hydro dynamically superior hull compensates for the lower power, which also helps in extending the action radius.
Wanna know what Britain can do with H39's 56,000 tons? (design 38D16 had 12 x 16 inch guns at only 48,000 tons)
tamenga88 4 months ago
Oh, and the V2 is a rocket. Ballistic missile and rocket are the same thing, unless your talking about the physics definition, then anything moving in a parabolic trajectory is a missile(which includes rockets and even bullets, and the v2 followed a parabolic trajectory anyway). Also, the bazooka was not very effective against Panzers, it didn't have a large enough charge. The german anti tank rockets on the other hand were far more effective. America later came out with the super bazooka
Jaydinator57 7 months ago
Back then bigger was often better, when it came to guns anyway. The Yamato's 18in guns could destroy an American Destroyer with a single shell, and the only American warship that could go toe to toe was the Iowa class. The Iowa class had less armor, but was faster than the Yamato, and because of the way its shells were made, its 16 in was actually about as powerful as the yamato's 18 inch. However, carriers were what brought the Yamato down, and escort carriers at that, not fleet carriers.
Jaydinator57 7 months ago
@Jaydinator57 yamatos shells hit harder
TheYamato101 7 months ago
be Realistic lol.. the projected speeds were done with the oredictions on how the ships would perform.. and Germany was by far ahead with their Highly efficient Diesel assisted Turbines.. the H44's could outsail the Montana on paper the H43 which was just as large but had smaller 17-18 inch guns was projected to run at 32 knots.. that is as good as the IOWA which was a toy really compared to the H43 design.
Detoyato 9 months ago
@Detoyato true that! not to mention germans made very good guns!...everything germans made was far better than what other countries could make...sure there was a few things other countries made that was better but still germany had the best of the best.....though i doubt you need 20 inch guns 16-18 inch guns would do it but increase the number of guns on the ship..perhaps have 4 turrets armed with 4 guns in each
edike 9 months ago
@edike 4 guns on one turret is efficient but not recomended as it would make it unbelievably complicated and
it suffers from reliability. Range and Speed is what wins it when it comes to battleships. If you can shoot at the oponent and he cant shoot you then your pretty much invulnerable, if he tries to get close then you just use your superior speed to keep him in your range and yourself out of his. perhaps the only advantage of more guns is better hit probability.
Detoyato 8 months ago
@edike
And yet they lost the war because the best of the best proved difficult and costly to manufacture and not enough of them (If some or any of the prototype weapons they invented entered production phase and some entered to late to effect the outcome of the war) could be shipped to the front-line WHERE and WHEN IT MATTERED.
Also their best of the best also proved difficult to repair when damaged.
tamenga88 4 months ago
@Detoyato The kriegsmarine was worse surface navy in WW2 no carriers, bismarck, graf spee, blucher all sunk on first mission, tirpitz only fired its guns at weather station, Narvik 10 german destroyers sunk for loss of 2 british destroyers, scharnhorst and gneisenau running away from 1 over age RN battle cruiser HMS Renown, bismarck most overrated warship ever built to WW1 Baden design could not stop 6 obsolete biplanes LOL what a mighty ship
jers59 3 weeks ago
@jers59 As I said... It was meant to slug out against other BATTLESHIP's not planes. The Thinking for the Bissy was a bit backwards at the time as the KM did not really equip the ship well against Aircraft.
That said, the Bissy did last quite well against the Rodney and KGV firing at her from as close as a few KM. At least they knew the Horizontal protection worked. Too bad her AA was hopeless. It survived so well that it SUNK instead of sustaining a Magazine explosion or anything like that.
Detoyato 3 weeks ago
@edike montana could destroy a h44 so yeah it had better accuarcey better guns better shells and could carry 20 OS2U float planes so it would beat almost anything any day
killer8479394 9 months ago
@killer8479394 idono about montana going head to head with H44...i mean montana had more smaller guns while h44 had less but bigger guns...also germans made very accurate guns!
edike 9 months ago
@edike but montana had 2 30" torpedo tubes... torpedo+h44=fail
killer8479394 9 months ago
@killer8479394 that doesn't change anything! if they are few miles each other the torpedoes wont do anything because H44 would just turn...you would have to be close to the ship
edike 9 months ago
@edike you said it yourself the h44 was the heavist that also meant it was the slowest
killer8479394 9 months ago
@killer8479394 H44 had 30.1 knots speed
edike 9 months ago
@edike the proper response is texas soilder! haha ok but anyway the montana had 45.1 OWNED like a baseball bat
killer8479394 9 months ago
@killer8479394 actually Montana was slower 28 knots top speed
edike 9 months ago
@edike
Yeah I know.
The final draft of USS Montana had disappointing top speed compared to the larger BB65 measure 8 design Montana concept that was 70,000 tons std with a whopping 320,000 SHP..
Measure 8 Montana could have hunted cruisers and even destroyers to the ground.
Only the tin can armored German KW45 and KW50 designs would have been faster (Bismarcks with 300,000 SHP and armor so thin they could be sunk by HMS Dorsetshire)
tamenga88 4 months ago
@tamenga88 Montana's top speed was limited because she had all the Armor plating and defenses the Iowa's did without. This would have made her easily a match for any Yamato. Even the Iowa was a match for the yamato. Not because she was a terrible ship but because the Japanese sucked throughout the war in firecontrol. The Iowa's and Montana's would hit far far more times with their 16in than a 18in Yamato carried. Hell the AP shells on the iowa had as good of penetration as the Yamato's.
valcan321 3 months ago
@killer8479394 lol where the hell did you get that? you made that up mate?
Detoyato 9 months ago
@Detoyato wiki
edike 9 months ago
@Detoyato U.S archives...owned
killer8479394 9 months ago
@killer8479394 lol that is just wrong..... I can hardly believe that with the technology at the time. How improbably efficient were their Turbines to achieve those speeds. Im quite curious on these ships now XD
Detoyato 8 months ago
@Detoyato remember germans were years ahead of everyone else! they invented the 1st rocket V1,V2 they invented the injection seat, panzerfust which was hand held tank buster so you have to think about it that maybe they could have accomplished such thing! i mean look germany made the biggest tank ever made! 188 tons! and the 88mm gun was the best anti air and anti tank gun ...and there are many more things germany made
edike 8 months ago
@edike some corrections. the V1 was a Cruise Missile (not a rocket) the V2 was a Ballistic Missile (again not a rocket) and being big aint really being better (the Tiger and Panther were sufficient) the 88mm Flak was the most versatile gun but it isnt the best. what with the 90 and 94mm of the US and UK back then. And the Ejection seat (Lolled at injection seat XD) but still they were quite advanced in technology even today.
Detoyato 8 months ago
@Detoyato yYeah i know there weren't rockets but i couldn't think of what they were called. And yeah being big means you get spotted easier which aint a good thing! but back in ww2 it was id say good thing if you were big like the tiger or panther but of course have good armor and gun. You didnt really have to worry about being killed by an air to ground missile...
edike 8 months ago
@Detoyato I mean sure you could be killed by airplanes but i dont think it was that easy to be killed by an airplane...WW2 was really the only war where tanks dominated the battlefield...nowdays tanks dont have a chance since 1 dude with a nasty anti tank weapon can killed you! while in ww2 there weren't such weapon that could kill a tank until the panzerfust or bazzoka come out....
edike 8 months ago
@edike but until these weapons were made the only way you killed a tank was with anti tank cannons,tanks,airplanes,arty and crazy soldiers jumping on the tank placing bombs on it.....now i dont know much about the 90mm or 94mm but i know the 90mm could 1 shot a panther...but these guns weren't in use till like 1944? the 88mm was in use against tanks from like 1941 and i was the best anti tank killer
edike 8 months ago
@edike
"remember germans were years ahead of everyone else! "
That didn't help the German turbine driven warships in WW2 with the advanced, light weight yet faulty high pressure steam system.
Because of that a diesel propelled U boat can sink more ships in the Atlantic than a German turbine driven heavy cruiser that has to cut it's cruise short due to constant engine problems.
They were advanced but they suck in proper testing and sufficient implementation.
tamenga88 4 months ago
@edike Lets see germany could not build 1 good bombers the allies had Lancaster, halifax, B17, B24< B25, B26, B29 all better then the crap german bombers, DC3 the greatest transport aircraft in WW2 the germans the obsolete in 1939, ju52 one of the ugliest aircraft and failure.Germany could not put 1 aircraft carrier into service US built over 140 including 24 of greatest class of warships in WW2 the Essex class, North Carolina, South Dakota, Iowa class BB all better then the obsolete bismarck
jers59 3 weeks ago
@Detoyato but you forgot these were gonna be made after ww2 so the tech woulde have been higher and if im correct if the montana had went into production it would still be with the US only having nuclear reactors as a power source
killer8479394 8 months ago
@killer8479394 That be a good point. but since war would hasten the development of technology, then every major power in the world would have the technology.
Detoyato 8 months ago
@killer8479394
Ba careful with that deduction.
A bigger ship doesn't necessarily mean it's slower.
However a bigger warship requires less engine power in relation to it's displacement compared to a smaller vessel to maintain same speed (Or cover the same distance)
For example a 10,000 cruiser requires 100,000 HP to achieve 33 knots top speed.
A 100,000 ton battleship with approx same hull co efficiency requires about 300,000 HP to achieve 33 knots.
tamenga88 4 months ago
@killer8479394
There's no point in arming a battleship with Torpedo tubes especially when you can destroy a battleship using gun alone while on the Horizon.
Far from effective torpedo range.
Interestingly HMS Rodney did use her torpedo tubes against Bismarck but that was after Bismarck was reduced to a crippled and retarded hulk that couldn't fire back.
tamenga88 4 months ago
@killer8479394
HMS Ark Royal could cripple or even sink the mighty H44 with repeated stern or bow hits.
If you look closely H44 guns are identical to that of Bismarck's.
And Bismarck couldn't even take down canvas airplanes while they managed to score hits while flying in lousy weather.
Bismarck couldn't last 10 minutes in Pacific waters on a clear day.
tamenga88 4 months ago
@tamenga88 Dont be so quick to dismiss the Bismarck... It was after all a faulty WWI era design... (Its Deck armor Scheme is Apalling) but its horizontal Protection was quite ingeneous... It was easily possibly to pierce its 13in belt, but doing that... the shell still needs to traverse multiple armored Decks (yes coz its third Main armored deck was turtlebacked over the ships vitals and meets the belt at its bottom edge) That "Safebox" is what contributed to its longevity in its last battle.
Detoyato 4 months ago
@tamenga88 I agree bismarck and tirpitz the 2 most overrated warships in naval history
jers59 3 weeks ago
@jers59 I think the Yamato can top them off with being Overrated XD. Seriously over 70,000 Tons. They went a bit overboard with that. I would rather take 2x35,000 ton South Dakotas.
I think the reason the Yamato achieved this fame was simply coz its BIG, well being the BIGGEST helps in securing your place in the hearts and minds of many lol.
Detoyato 3 weeks ago
@Detoyato Yamato was badly damage by 1 torpedo fired by sub in 1943, The Yamato showing at Samar along with 3 other BB,s +heavy cruisers was embarassement
jers59 3 weeks ago
N3 is the nelson
gabe3702 10 months ago
@gabe3702
hmmm Yes and NO
N3 had it's 3rd turret amidships instead of behind turret 2.
Plus N3 had 18 Inch guns.
The Nelsons are Battleship design O3... Downsized from 48,000 tons to 35,000 tons as a result of the Washington naval treaty and using Battlecruiser design G3 guns.
tamenga88 4 months ago
Its better to have fewer LARGER guns than a lot of smaller popguns.... You get MORE range and more penetration.... The H44 had guns that outranges the Yamato.. and the H44 will also be immune to anything smaller than its own guns. When Hitler found out that the Jap's were planning 20.1 inch guns he re speced the H44 with 21 inch main armaments...
Detoyato 11 months ago
@Detoyato: it is also better to have a realistic plan to finance and build the given superbattleship in a timely manner, and as far as that goes, the H44 was the weakest of the hypothetical ships listed as it required by far the most resources, new technology, new shipbuilding facilities, and time to build....and germany was in no way prepared to build on that scale. in reality, the montana was the only one of these that COULD have been built (though even it would have missed the war)
22steve5150 10 months ago
@22steve5150 I disagree, The H44 was a good Idea in the progress of battle ships. The fact that it still only fielded 8 guns is pretty poor. (2) (2) (2) (2) Where as a ship displacing 130 000 + tonnes would be much better off to field a lighter gun in greater quantity such as the 15 incher (They were on par with 16 inch, Krupp made very good guns) but in a lay out of (4) (4) (4) (4) the 24 guns matched to a proper Radar Controlled firing system would wreck.
Fischer0Dude 9 months ago
@Fischer0Dude you miss the point of my first post. the point is that of all of the projected super-battleships, the german H44 was the least likely to be built and would have had by far the most tech and logistical challenges, hence i consider it not much better than a plan for "space battleship yamato", being as how it had NO CHANCE of ever being built (german industry coundnt support it, no big drydocks, time to develop new tech) whereas a montana class was well within US capability to build
22steve5150 9 months ago
@22steve5150 I would have to agree and disagree, of all the nations that could have built a 100 000 ton + war ship Germany could have had the best chances to build one had the war not turned against her. It would be an illogical waste of precious steel, when Air craft and submarines (at least when in packs) were proving far more useful. But German engineers already were looking at using dredged river basins, floating dry docks ect. It would need some McGuivering, but Germany could hanfle it.
Fischer0Dude 9 months ago
@Fischer0Dude I dont see germany having a better chance at it than the US or japan (US naval production of battleship - carrier size ships was immense, japan already having a 70k ton battleship class to start with, as well as both nations more experienced with operating large numbers of and quickly producing battleships during that time) germany could have tried to build a 140k ton ship but even under the best conditions they likely couldnt have completed it until several years after the war
22steve5150 9 months ago
@22steve5150 germany focused on bigger better stuff which lead to it being trashed because there were still working on it after ww2
killer8479394 9 months ago
@22steve5150 Aye that be true.. Industrial power wins wars.. no matter how powerful a war machine is.. its
not much use if you only get a handful of them up against an unending stream of inferior crap.. well still paper wars are still nice.. allows the imagination for destruction to roam.. It doesnt need to be feesible to be good..
Detoyato 9 months ago
@Detoyato
"Depends on the conditions."
I can take a bunch of 6 Inch gunned armed Clevelands and South Hamptons.
Come in close enough range from different directions (An the process two or three cruisers might be lost or disabled in the process) and rapid-fire the H44 rangefinders and fire-control to pieces taking out it's brain.
H44 will still float but she ceased to be an effective fighting unit with her mighty guns having nothing to aim at.
the Battleship Hiei met it's demise like that.
tamenga88 4 months ago
@tamenga88 They can work on Local control but that would be VERY inefficient and considering that the guns take up to a minute to reload (They took less time but this is wartime condition here so it be worse).
I recall Ive seen an even Larger BB design from Hitler's Magalomaniacal mind... Seen it somewhere and it was to have displaced 700,000 tons and about 2000 ft long. It came out of his idea to arm the ship with 8 Schwere Gustav (however you spell that) 800mm guns... CRAZY
Detoyato 4 months ago
No music ?
FreezeProduct 1 year ago
@FreezeProduct naa man didnt feel like putting anything on...i just quickly put this together because i was tired
edike 1 year ago