Most dominating Battleship

[Zopperoni]

Oy! I thought the "Ambulance"-thread was supposed to be the last of the "Dominating"-series!

OTOH, this gives me an excuse to prepare and present my "Most Dominating Electrical Wheelchair"-thread.

[Chris 62]

Laz, have to disagree about the Graf Spee.

The Germans called it a Panzer schilff, or armored ship, later rated a heavy cruiser, and the design was flawed.

The main armament was 6x11inch guns, not very much, with the added mistake that they were of slow firing and slow turret traverse.
They also were not fast.
The French Strasbourg class was built as a counter to them, carried 8x13 inch weapons, had a better turn of speed, and equal armor protection.

Graff Spee was defeated by a small heavy cruiser (6x8in guns) and two light cruisers, so it couldn't defeat even smaller ships.
Her career was decent, but her sisters Admiral Scheer and Lutzow were uneventful failures.

As for the Hood, she was designed before Jutland, where the flaws of british battlecruisers were revealed.
They were all vulnerable to plunging shot.
The real culprit in Hood's demise was the admirility, they had schedualed a major rebuilding of Hood to commense in 1938, but from the Munich crisis foward, they found a reason to keep her active.

[Urban Ranger]

What does it mean by dominating? It means this battleship can kick the crap out of any other battleship on a one on one fight.

This clearly is the Yamato.

[Chris 62]

Actually UR, I doubt Yamato class would be as effective as you think, it's 18in main armament was extremly slow firing, and they lacked the fire-control radar that the USN and RN ships enjoyed as the war went on.

Of course, they had very thick armored belts, but were hardly worth the money spent on them.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The Bismarck had some of the most accurate fire control of any surface vessel in WWII. If the British hadn't had all the ships in the world she would have been able to wreck some serious ass.

By the end of the war the range finding and fire control equipment on American ships was the best in the world.

It wasn't all the ships in the world that doomed the Bismark, it was a single obsolete carrier equipped with obsolete biplanes. An Iowa class battleship, bristling with 10 five inch dual purpose AA turrets, 20 quad-forty mm emplacements and up to 100 twenty mm guns, and the first two types guided and / or aimed by radar would have laughed off the pathetic British air attack.

[Wraith]

The Space Battleship Yamato, of course. What can compare to the Wave Motion Cannon?

Wraith
"They yell the names of the weapons. I wonder if it's got voice recognition?"
-- Mr. Gort ("Martian Successor Nadesico")

[Thrawn05]

If the Bismark didn't get cheated at sea, it would of have made life for the allies a living hell IMHO.

[Khan Singh]

In terms of overall usefulness, the Iowas were supreme. But that wouldn't have mattered in a gun battle. There, Yamato would take out Iowa in five minutes. And Iowa could take out anything else in five minutes.

Okay, to be fair Bismark would still be afloat after five, as would Richelieu. But both would be out of action and incapable of escape. So they die, Captain, and we all move up in rank.

The other contenders don't really figure. Vittorio Veneto had an impressive gun battery, but insufficient armor and poor general protection. King George V had decent armor and good practicality, but her battery was simply inadequate.

It would be fairer, though not especially helpful, to ask what ship generated the best performance per ton of displacement. I think Richelieu did, with overall power probably very comparable to the Iowas on 10,000 tons less displacement. And Iowa wasn't exactly wasting a lot of displacement herself.

Of course, ultimately "deserves got nothing to do with it." Iowa would have faced Yamato and lost and the fact that she had 15,000 tons less displacement wouldn't have counted for anything. In a battleship action, if the enemy has guns able to penetrate your armor, you're dead. That is pretty much how the equation finally works out. All the ships here could hit the enemy at 18,000 yards, and all their shells exploded reliably enough to allow them to blow up inside an armored citadel. Radar and good fuses are nice, but the simple fact of the matter is that Iowa's armor was just sufficiently thick to ensure that Yamato's 18.1" shells would detonate after they penetrated Iowa's belt. All of Iowa's advantages come to naught on that simple fact.

In overall historical terms, the most dominating battleship was probably Dreadnaught whose battery easily outclassed that of any opponent. Likewise, the Queen Elizabeths were far superior in gun power to any contemporaneous battleship. British fuses reduced their effectiveness, but nonetheless they remained highly effective battleships 30 years after construction

[Transcend]

Originally posted by Thrawn05
If the Bismark didn't get cheated at sea, it would of have made life for the allies a living hell IMHO.

I highly doubt this, because its sister ship, the Tirpitz, had an abysimal record during the war and spent most of its time hiding in a Norwegian fyord.

[Simon Darkshade]

IIRC, Ark Royal was not "obsolete" at the time of the Bismarck sinking, but was rather one of the Royal Navy's most modern fleet carriers.
Compared to some in service in the US and Japanese navies, it was certainly much less powerful, but was good in its service in the Atlantic, Home Fleet and and the Med.
The Swordfish was an old biplane, but was still quite useful, and ended up having a good strike rate with some significant kills and assists.

As said, the circumstances of the destruction of the Hood were extremely similar to the destruction of British battlecruisers at Jutland.

Also to be considered is the way in which the Hood was regarded as the "pride of the Royal Navy", which did obscure her true capabilities and role to some extent. The concentrated and accurate fire of Bismarck and Prinz Eugen was not what she was designed and armoured for, and her assumption of the dominant role in the engagement instead of the better armoured Prince of Wales can be seen as an extention of this... delusion on behalf of the Admiralty that Chris alluded to.

The Yamato and Musashi were well armoured and armed, but they were not decisive weapons, and cash cows that did not see extensive use save for their final, futile missions.

[steelehc]

The 16"/50s on the Iowas were and are the best guns ever put to sea. The may not have been the biggest, but...
-most accurate
-same range or greater then Yamato
-much better penetration
-higher rate of fire

I threw in the British and Italian ships to balance out the field.

Steele

[Khan Singh]

Well, of course all battleships were expensive white elephants that accomplished little. That's why we don't build them any more. The Yamatos were probably less useless than other battleships, for the simple reason that they could have actually destroyed any other battleship,while the other battleships would only have been destroyed by them. Naturally carriers, or even land based air, would have been a better use of resources. But there is no particular reason to think that Yamato was more of a waste than Iowa. Neither of them did anything to justify their costs, which were enormous.

The 16"/50s were superior guns, and Iowa's battery were probably slightly superior to Yamato's in total usefulness, given her better shells and fire control. But firepower is only half the equation. Iowa was simply not designed with immunity to her own gun power at decisive combat ranges. Yamato, on the other hand, was. And, since their gunpower was basically comparable, Yamato's shells would penetrate Iowa's citadel, while Iowa's shells would not. Since the raison d'etre of battleships is combat in the battleline, that means that Yamatos were superior, albeit on much higher displacement.

[Saint Marcus]

The Yamato for sure. Big ass mother****er.

From warships of the world:

By far the largest warships of W.W.II. They were also the heaviest armed and armored of all battleships. These great ships were built in complete secrecy and it was not until very late in the war that it was found out how large and powerful they really were.

[MORON]

The Space Battleship Yamato, of course. What can compare to the Wave Motion Cannon?

YEAH BABY

I should pit it with Nadesico with Y-Unit......

Iowa....

[Khan Singh]

The USN put out a lot of arguments about the tremendous power of 16"/50 caliber guns, partly out of pride and partly to justify recommissioning the Iowa class. But, in truth, I just don't see much reason to think that the guns themselves were actually better than Yamato's.

The 16"/50 caliber gun was good, but, good as it was, it is important to remember that the Yamato's guns were still 18.1". They may not have been especially powerful guns for their size. But they none the less fired a 20% heavier shell at a slightly higher muzzle velocity than the "tremendously powerful" guns of Iowa. Terminal velocity was also slightly higher and the long delay fuze of Japanese "diving" shells would help to defeat the resistive properties of the Iowa's armor scheme, as well as resulting in more hits due to diving through water. Firing cycle was probably only slightly longer than Iowa's, contrary to the numerous claims made over the years that Yamato fired slowly.

If the Iowa's battery did had an advantage over Yamato's, then it came from radar, superior fire control and from better shells. These are important advantages and, as I said, I think it makes Iowa's battery slightly superior overall.

But again, this does not mean an Iowa could defeat a Yamato. Iowa may have had better fire control than Yamato, but this does not mean Yamato couldn't hit targets. On the contrary, by all accounts, including those of Americans off Leyte, she fired tight salvos accurately ---night or day. The Iowa's might have hit Yamato first, but the Yamatos were built to take that kind of punishment. The Iowas were not. Almost any hit by Yamato on Iowa had a high chance of penetrating her armor and exploding in her vitals.