Nelson's protection was far superior to the Nagato, and her gunnery much better at long range. Nagato can run or die, but not win. When Nelson commissioned, the world's battlelines were running at ~21 knots on average. the 23 knots Nelson could command was faster then anything in the USN, faster then everything presently in the RN short of the QE's and BCs, faster then the Italians, Russians or French currently had. Only the IJN operated ships faster, but with inadequate armor schemes. They were hardly obsolete when launched; in fact their protection scheme and armament was far better then anything else in the world. Nelson and Rodney could go anywhere they wanted to at 23 knots. Nagato could /not/ go anywhere she wanted at 26.
I think the Ganguts were rated for 23 knots but by the time the Nelsons came along they were harbor queens (or is that not proletarian enough). Their armor was weak and their 12" guns, despite being excellent examples of that type were too small to be considered first rate. Were not the Nelsons even up armored in the 1930's?
I disagree. Very little of the RN's mission actually required high speed. The RN's primary purpose was to protect the British supply lines. Convoys and slow battleships accomplished that since there were no european battle fleets to challenge them. Simply putting an ancient R class BB, or a Nelson in a convoy made that convoy virtually untouchable as the Germans were not allowed to play with British capital ships. The USN on the other hand could have desperately used a pair of Lexingtons as opposed to 2 Colorados. Until 1941, the USN had no big guns that could challenge the IJN Kongos as carrier escorts, should it come to a surface fight. in fact, one of Adm King's favorite complaints of his whipping boy Fletcher is the failure to use his surface ships in a surface action against the Kido Butai's screen. It's ironic that a black shoe like Fletcher had a better graps on air operations and carrier tactics then the JCL brown shoe, King. Even after 1941, the USN BB escorts were really limted to 25-27 knots tops short of the Iowas and Alaskas. Several times in 1942 did the carrier screens almost come in contact with the IJN screens, and those old BC's would have made short work of the USN CAs outside of anything other then the historical scrap in Ironbottom Sound where both sides were surprised by the other at point blank range.
I meant that if they had the benefit of being able to see what the requirements would be for the next war. The Nelsons as built fit perfectly with the RN's requirements for the time. 20 years later they were a bit on the pokey side, but the same could be said about the USN BB's from Arkansas upto but not including the North Carolinas. For the RN even the Royal Sovereigns more than proved their worth as convoy escorts.
Even so, what did the RN really need fast battleships for? By the time WW2 started, the day of the BB was gone, it's just that nobody knew it yet. At that stage of the game, a BC was perfectly viable as a carrier escort that could mix it up with an enemy screen /if necessary/. If the Americans had built the Alaskas instead of the NCs and SoDaks, that potentially gives the USN 2-3 Alaska class BC's as escorts at Midway. Should Halsey have been in charge as was intended, and he ran into Nagumo's screen chasing Kido Butai, the chances are certainly better with two Alaskas to counter his two Kongos. The biggest service the fast BB's provided was carrier escort as AA ships, and Alaskas could do that nearly as well as the fast BB's could. Even if you replace the SoDak and Washington at second Guadalcanal, Kirishima still likely gets pasted by Alaska at 9800 yards and Guam gets torn up by Kirishima, but probably not sunk.
I believe that the need for faster battleships was that it would allow your fleet to gain an advantageous tactical position. The IJN was basing this on their Tsushima experience. I believe the USN wargamed it out and found the speed needed would cause too many sacrifices in armor so never made faster ships in the pre-Washington days. The South Dakotas were the first to feature a higher speed and the 35 knot speeds for the Lexingtons/Flush Deckers/Omaha were predicated on the scouts having a speed of x% faster than the battleline. I can only assume that the RN made similar calculations with the ships that were cancelled under Washington and were satisfied with the Nelson's speed as was.
Agreed. I'm just saying that by the time war came around, aircraft in general, be them carrier borne or land based had mostly obsoleted the battleship. Thus, no mission that the RN had truly called for a fast BB in WW2.
True enough on the Scharnhorst, they couldn't have chased it down and killed it with an old BB, and the weather was really too poor to use aircraft in that area. It's a shame, because battleships are pretty darned cool.
Exactly, one tactical incident does not a strategy make. To be fair most of the WW2 fast battleships were designed before the dominance of the carrier was confirmed. All the admiralties seemed to have their conservative elements.
Oh definitely, and it wasn't until recently when I finished reading "Blackshoe Carrier Admiral" about FJ Fletcher that I really understood how close our carriers operated to IJN carrier groups, with relative regularity. Guns could have made a difference, and the USN had none that could keep up with the carriers, while the INJ had the Kongos. In the Atlantic, it was all about commerce warfare which has a whole different set of needs. Something to think about is, what would the British have done had the Germans built carriers instead of battleships? Suddenly, the old BB's aren't sufficient to escort the convoys, the raiders are harder to detect because the CAP can blow searching aircraft out of the sky, and they are certainly not going to get torpedoed by stringbags. I find it amazing really how advanced the Germans were in the air and on the ground...but failed miserably at sea. The Germans had Jets, were using combined arms tactics, their tanks were top notch. They had missiles, and guided bombs...very advanced stuff. But at sea, they were slaves to an outdated tactical model. The strategy of cutting supply lines, was dead on, but where was the foresight on how to actually do that? Subs for sure were a big part, but battleships? Even the battleships were of outdated construction in a manner (the Bismarck Worshippers don't like that, but it's true) in both armor scheme and armament. Where was the foresight? For a nation who looked for answers in the skies so much, how did they fail to see the potential of the aircraft carrier?
I can only assume that the internal politics in Germany had something to do with that. I will give the KM this, they did get the aesthetics of the ships right, making them great propoganda tools but not so good when you actually have to use them in battle.
I submit that His Imperial Japanese Majesty's Ship Mikasa is the mightiest battleship ever built. Forget the numbers and look at her actual performance. Not only was Mikasa the most powerful ship in the only fleet to ever decisively win a major battle during the Age of the Battleship, she's still around today. All other claimants to the title of "mightiest" are either long gone or were never truly tested. Even the vaunted Iowas and Yamatos never faced off against another fleet of battleships: all their biggest battles were fought vs air or shore.
One aspect of Germany's lack of carriers was personalities. Between Hitler's facination with "bigger is better" (Maus tank, Bismarck, etc) and Goering's insistence that anything that flew be under Luftwaffe control, their foray into carrier's was an uphill battle from the start. Add to that the relatively late start of the KM (US, Japan, and UK had been experimenting with carriers since WW1, but until Hitler rose to power in the early '30's, Germany had nothing), and there's no way to develop doctrines & equipment to any useful level within the timeframe allowed by the Nazi's.
While I love these discussions about carriers, tactics, and all, let's get back to the original topic: Best 8" cruiser of WW2: I have to say the most powerful CA would have been the Des Moines... if she had been completed before 1946. In reality, she wasn't commissioned until '48. So the candidates are: France: Algerie (1934) with 8x8" guns, but being built strictly to the Washington treaty limit of 10ktons means very limited armor for her 30kt speed. Germany: Prinz Eugen (1940). While I think the Prinz Eugen is one of the prettiest warships ever built she's not the most combat-effective. Her machinery was tempermental, her operating range was limited. Her guns and gunnery were 1st rate, though, and she had very good armor for a CA, not to mention 32 kt speed. Of course, she was also over 25% above the treaty limit (12,750 tons). GB: Dorsetshire (1930). 8x8" guns and 32kts on 9,950 tons displacement. Possibly the best treaty cruiser design built. Decent belt but extremely thin deck and turret armor. Italy: Balzano (1933) 8x8", 34 kts on 11,065 tons. Huge speed, but the Italians tested their ships top speed before mounting certain equipment...like the main gun turrets. So this number is a little doubtful. Decent armor coverage, but again I think the RM's lack of leadership and aggression hurts her badly. Japan: Mogami (1940 refit): 10x8" guns, 34 kts, 12,400 tons. Her 4" belt is comperable to anyone else's out there, but only the Brit's had thinner deck armor. Between the guns and speed, this is a legitimate contender for the nastiest out there. US: Baltimore (1944): 9x8" guns, 32kts, 13,600 tons. Best armor protection of any CA built at the time, great speed, 9 heavy guns. In warships, size does count, and being the biggest on this list gives Baltimore a clear edge. My winner: Baltimore. In a straight-up, 1-on-1 with any of the others, her heavier armor wins the day. Mogami's 1-gun and 2kt speed advantage just means she can run away. If she tries to close, Baltimore would tear her apart before she got into a range where she could pen Baltimore's armor.
SMS BLUECHER!!!! Now that's a cruiser 12x8.2" guns, 7" armor. Admittedly slow at 25 knots with poor deck armor and no AA defenses to speak of, but what a looker!
Baltimore and it's not even close. In addition to better armor, the Baltimores fired a super heavy 335 pound shell compared to ~280 from other nations in 8" and had radar firecontrol. There wasn't a better Heavy cruiser out there until the Des Moines came along. The only argument you may find are the people who think that torpedoes on cruisers was a good idea. The fact is, that the proper weapon for delivering torpedoes was the destroyer. Prinz Eugen is also severely overrated imo. While pretty, imo she was a steaming pile of poo as far as being a cruiser.
