I've heard a lot of bragging about this ship or that being better in RC-scale combat (under various rules). Let's start a topic comparing the actual ships, and how they'd stack up 1-on-1 against one another. We can break it down into two catagories: Best ever (so you can compare 1945 ships to earlier ones) and -much more challenging- in terms of contemporaries. Example: Nobody can dispute that the Yamato was the largest battleships ever built, with the biggest guns. But how would a Yamato fair in a 1-vs-1 fight with an Iowa? Especially late war, when Iowa had the best radar-aimed fire control ever put into a battleship. Example number 2: What was the best Battleship afloat in 1940? What about Best in the Atlantic Theater (German, Italian, British, French)? Here's an arguement for Bismarck in 1940 Atlantic: Britain's King George V: Bismarck is faster (30 kts vs 28) than KG-V and had longer ranged guns, she could choose the engagement range and wear down the slower ship. Further, KG-V only had 5" of deck armor (average), which would make her very vulnerable to plunging fire at long ranges. France's Richelieu: Bismarck is slower than Rich's 32 kts, and Rich also slightly outranges B's 39,600 yd range, but Rich's 15" guns were of a lower velocity, with less pen and lighter shell weights. Armor was very equal. So Rich could choose the range, but the lighter shells would not be effective at extreme range. If she closed, Bismarck's heavier shells would cost. And the tactical disadvantage of Rich's all-forward gun layout means she couldn't even choose to run away without giving up any chance of fighting back. Italy's Vittorio Veneto: On paper, this is a very close match. Both ships were 30kts, both had very similar armor values. VV had 9 15" guns very much like Bismarcks 8 in performance, so the edge would seem to go to Italy. But the absolutely dismal record of the Regina Marina during WW2 in leadership, damage control, and just plain fighting spirit plainly handicap VV too much. If we extend the comparison to the Pacific, 1940 brings us the Nagato (built 1920) and the Colorado (built 1921). Hardly a fair matchup. The North Carolina's and Yamato's were not commisioned until 1941. Please give me feedback, both on my matchup, and on others. I envision one on "Best Heavy Cruiser of WW2, Best Dreadnought of WW1, etc)
I think this pretty well sorts out all the variables. Of course it is only for the Late Treaty and Post Treaty BB's http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm
I would say that the Queen Elizabeths were probably the best of the Great War battleships. Followed by the Royal Sovereigns.
Here, now.... The challenge was to state an opinion, then BACK THEM UP. Just throwing out a ship name just aint agonna cut it. In terms of sheer longevity, the QE's definitely had something going for them. But show how they were superior to (for example) the Pennsylvania or New Mexico class ships, or the Ise, or Bayern classes.
I agree with Anachronus. The Combined Fleet site pretty much takes all the variables and then some to rate the ships about as fairly as anything else out there. It makes for some very good reading. It also proves that the biggest guns didn't make the ship the best.
With the QE's I would say that their speeds would give them a tactical advantage over the USN ships, I am not familiar enough with the Ise's to comment but they were built on the lines of RN ships. I would probably put the ISE's as slightly better than the Iron Dukes due to their 14" guns vs. the 13.5's on the ID. The 15" guns on the Queens were certainly very reliable performers and the shells developed after Jutland were quite reliable. In their post war analysis of Baden the RN rated her as being roughly equivalent to the Royal Sovereigns. They also found her flash protection some what suspect but came to the conclusion that the German use of brass cased cartridges for the main guns made up for much of that. Her armor was easily penetrable by the post Jutland shells from what I remember reading. I believe that it was the RN's policy to fire HE shells at long range which may have been an advantage against the USN ships. As with all things I think Fortuna would have her say.
In addendum the USN had some bad dispersion problems with the 14" triple turrets which took them some time correct. Stanley Goodall, the chief constructor of the RN in the Great War was not impressed with the water tight integrity of USN ships.
I agree that that site breaks down the major players pretty thoroughly. What it doesn't do is compare "apples to apples" and look at ships at a given time. So, in 1940, Iowa, Yamato and SoDak are all still being built or not even off the drawing boards. Richelieu is complete but has not yet been refitted in the U.S. with upgraded fire control and AA. Oh, one other class of BB I forgot to list for 1940: Rodney / Nelson: 16" guns with a 42000 yard range are a significant threat... if this 1927 ship with a 24kt top speed could convince Bismarck to hang around long enough to allow it into range. Their low top speed and funky turret layout make these more seagoing Monitors than true battleships
The Queen Elizabeths were not any faster, and most of the USN Battlefleet would have been happy to see 21 knots. The 16" guns were flakey at first and had a very light shell as introduced. These problems were mostly ironed out by the mid 1930's. Monitors? Hardly.
Heee... I do believe I struck a nerve. Lowest speed of a "modern" battleship in WW2 was around 28 kts (Yamato, KG-V). From there they ranged upward to Iowa's 33(plus). "Monitor" as used in the 20th Century: A slow, heavily armored ship with large calibre guns, primarily of use for shore bombardment. Since the Rodney class was too slow to catch even a cold, this was their primary purpose by the 1940's. Well, that and escorting high-value convoys, where their slow speed wasn't a factor and any aggressors would have to come to them to reach the convoy.
While the fastest monitors probably could have kept pace with a convoy their legs were too short. The Nelson and Rodney really can't be compared with the later vessels, I see them as the ultimate outgrowth of the WW1 battleship, trimmed down to fit the Treaty environment. The decade of improvements shown in the later designs is quite telling. The G3's probably would have sent the Bismarck scampering away. With the Rodney's he could manage it. Also Monitors were not usually very heavily armored, at least not the WW1 variety. Light weight/shallow draft were more important.
Something to remember is German WW2 shells were not terribly reliable, and using light-weight high velocity shells will degrade their accuracy at long ranges. Bismarck was designed to fight a short range battle where those high MV guns have a better chance of punching through belt armor. Bismarck could /not/ penetrate KGV's decks under 30,000 yards. Bismarck could penetrate KGV's belt at anything under ~ 25k yards. So, at any effective range Bismarck can penetrate KGV's belt, but belt hits at long range are not likely, meaning that Bismarck /has/ to close the range to at least 25k yards to win. That cancels out the speed advantage. KGV could theoretically penetrate Bismarck's deck @~25,000 yards. Anything under 15,000 yards is a theoretical belt penetration. So, Bismarck is immune to KGV's fire from 15k yards to 25k yards, while KGV is /not/ immune to /belt/ hits at any range out to 25k yards, but is completely immune to deck penetration at any range. Essentially, this is a wash. KGV's quad turrets are crap in 1940 though and likely to malfunction, so I'd give the Bismarck a better chance to soft kill KGV, and the extra speed and range give it the edge. That's 1940. 1941 comes along and the NC's are commissioned, and it's a different ball game.
The quad 14's had been pretty well debugged by 1943 though, but they had few chances to use them against anything. Save for Scharnhorst.
As for the Colorado/Nagato matchup, you might be surprised. Colorado can penetrate Nagato's belt at any range under 30k. Colorado can penetrate Nagato's deck at any range over 20k. I don't have penetration data on the IJN 16.1 inch shell. The IJN's shell is slightly heavier, so should have slightly better penetration capabilities. Colorado's belt armor is much better then Nagato's, but 11mm less deck armor. Nagato's shells were crap, and so was IJN fire control. USN firecontrol sucked too, in 1940. I doubt either side can hit the other. This fight's a wash. Give the USN radar firecontrol in 1943, and it's a laugher with Colorado crushing the Nagato.
yeah that's why I specified 1940 for the quad turrets. KGV's broke down in the Bismarck's final fight too. The KGV's were just a terribly compromised design.
I think the PoW put up a good show against Bismarck considering she still had civilian yard workers aboard during the fight. I do agree that the KGV's had some poor design choices made. 3x3 14" guns would have probably been better, if only for economies of scale. 15 3 gun turrets and mountings must be cheaper and easier to make than 10 quads + 5 doubles.
The Nelsons were slow by 1940, but they were still quite a formidable warship. Nine 16" 45 cal naval rifles, each firing a 2048lb shell at 2614 fps. Range of over 39,000 yards. That is going to spoil your day for sure. The class was designed to sail at, and kill, anything it came across. When launched, they were the single most powerful weapon on the face of the planet. Oh, and don't forget they were also equipped with very large 24.5" oxygen-enriched torpedoes as well. Only Rodney really got a chance to show what the class was capable of in a battleship fight, but aquitted herself well, I think. Yes, I love my HMS Rodney.
When launched they were the most powerful? Hmm.. Nagato had 1 fewer 16" rifle, but was faster and had a much more useful turret layout. Rodney, being slower is going to be at a tactical disadvantage. Nagato can choose the range, or just go around Rodney and go blow up stuff outside Rod's reach. And torpedoes were an anachronism on battleships by the 1920's. A warship is not just guns. Just like tanks, they are a balance of firepower, protection, and manueverability. These boats had plenty of firepower (very poorly laid out) and very good protection, but practically define "LST"... Large Stationary Target. I see Nelson / Rodney as Maginot Line at sea. Obsolete even before they were completed.
The RN would have been better going with the F2 design which had 9 15" and a speed of 29 knots, 12 inch belt and 6 inch decks. Though there was no way of knowing that at the time.
