What were the best ships of each class during ww2? My vote for the Yūgumo-class in the destroyer department

Gearings were overloaded with guns fwd, Fletchers had 5 singles which could operate with no power.

Yamato armor was poor quality.

>DD
Allen sumner

>CL

Atlanta

>CA
Baltimore

>CB

Alaska

>BB
South Dakota

>CV

Essex.

Bismarck > South Dakota

Excuse me but the Iowa is a straight upgrade from the South Dakota. If you really want to have the shittiest living spaces of the US navy then ok go ahead bro.

>same guns
>same number of guns

Iowa was full retard big, for absolutely no reason, it's just a giant target, probably why they never fired at another ship in the war.

Bismarck had some quirks that led to her being kind of a mess.
>Triple screw and double rudder
>Ineffective AA because it was either too long range or too short range
>Firing the main guns knocked our her radar

Well if you want to get into the details, the Iowas had longer guns (16 in. 45 cal. vs 16 in. 50 cal.) which resulted in faster velocity and longer ranges.
The Iowa & New Jersey did engage some Japanese ships at Truk in 1944 but the Iowas were mostly sailing with the fleet carriers because that's why they had high speed and powerful AA; their primary role was to defend the CVs. So they never really got a test of capital ship vs capital ship because large Japanese ships getting close to an American carrier group would have been a very big failure in intelligence and awareness.

It wasn't up to us standards but it was alright, especially considering the yamato class were given high priority for resources and were under construction before the war. Her belt was also the thickest of any battleship ever built additionally negating the effects of the lesser quality armor. I'm not a weeb but I will say the Yamato was a technological marvel of her time and had the looks to match, shame what happened to her really. What a tragic waste of lives and a beautiful ship

Attached: b1c537a16fc0c1199e067caaf31c8b1e.jpg (2560x1600, 526K)

As long as you pretend the Nelson doesn't exist they sure do.
>HMS Tiger

Attached: TigerSP1674.png (1893x723, 902K)

>number of guns and size of guns

Because a ship is just guns and nothing else.

South Dakotas and North Carolinas were the best possible compromises that could be made under the terms of the Second London Naval Treaty, but still compromises. They were too limited by displacement- being cramped and unable to make a 30kt top speed. The Iowas rectified the problems of the South Dakotas and North Carolinas.

>probably why they never fired at another ship in the war.

They never fired at another ship in the war because they were commissioned too late. Surigao Strait and North Cape were the only engagement between battleships after Iowas commissioning.

Brits were pretty hit and miss for looks.

Personally I think the County-class are peak interwar aesthetics.

Attached: dpZk643.jpg (2930x1984, 529K)

Tiger has a weird looking layout. The two aft guns are spaced very far apart. Overall a nice looking ship like a lot of the WW1 battlecruisers.
Nelson & Rodney may not win beauty contests but they have a look that says "I'll knock you the fuck out." which has its own charm.

Attached: 15-3807520-hms-rodney-i-hms-nelson.jpg (1931x1470, 415K)

They have a look that says "who opened the ark of the covenant?" imo. But every navy has their fuglies I suppose.

Attached: rodney shits fury.jpg (1280x720, 240K)

Pretty sure that's where the turbines are

If they would have just said fuck the treaty and put one turret aft the ship it would look fine.

>Bongs
>being the first to break a naval treaty willingly
Remember how they insisted on 14" guns, armed the KGV-class with them, and then it turns out no one else followed suit?

Didn't an Iowa sink a Japanese light cruiser?

>Only ones to actually adhere to the treaty
>Have to make weird ass ships like the Rodney
>Still do well
Not bad bongs

>giant target
You could say that about any capital ship really. The Iowa was lengthened over previous designs for better speed which was ideal for escorting carrier groups, providing both potent aa and gunfire support.
>why they never fired at another ship in the war.
They actually did although it was just a cl/training cruiser and destroyer. But most battleships of wwii rarely if ever engaged enemy ships anyway and the number of surface engagements is not a useful tool for judging a ship design.

>Triple screw and double rudder
Not really an issue
>Ineffective AA because it was either too long range or too short range
That was Yamato's problem actually, Bismarck on the other hand had 20mm, 37mm, and 105mm aa covering all bases. However her aa battery didn't take into account obsolete biplanes apparently kek.
>Firing the main guns knocked our her radar
An issue that should and could have been rectified had they went about proper live fire gunnery practice before going to sea. I don't believe Tirpitz had that problem. All that being said though
Bismarck

>not really an issue
Yes, it was a major issue. During trials it was shown that the Bismarcks would struggle to turn with just the propeller shafts and no rudder.
>Bismarck's AA was fine, just didn't take into account biplanes
The 20mm mounts had poor sky arcs, the 37mm guns were single shot, and the 105mm mountings were unreliable at the best of times.
>If they had proper live fire training the radar wouldn't have been knocked out
Possible.
>Bismarck

Yeah until your power goes out at night retard lol

South Dakota wouldn't even be able to catch the Bismarck

Attached: this_is_the_enemy.png (437x258, 95K)

No one likes Japanese ships?

>Yes, it was a major issue. During trials it was shown that the Bismarcks would struggle to turn with just the propeller shafts and no rudder.
So would any ship given that situation. But that's irrelevant given Bismarck never lost her rudder, the torpedo explosion bent both rudders up and hard over, no amount of propeller throttling would have made a difference.
>The 20mm mounts had poor sky arcs, the 37mm guns were single shot, and the 105mm mountings were unreliable at the best of times.
By 1941 standards her aa battery was adequate at the time even compared to other navies. If Bismarck survived her aa would have been eventually buffed to tirpitz levels.

I like them, but yamato aside they're simply not as good. But they are not bad either

>everyone is choosing American ships
Peak Burger delusion lmfao

>still seething

Attached: 1555067693393.jpg (795x608, 104K)

The belt was thick, but it wasn't thick enough to matter. The only part of the YAMATO that could resist a hit from an IOWA at 40,000yds were the turret faces.

AESTHETIC

>nelson class
fuck you i like it. even if it's retarded.

forgot pic

Attached: HMS_Nelson_off_Spithead1937-HD-2000x768.jpg (2000x768, 342K)

>>DD
>Fletcher
Uhm, I'd also nominate Fletcher class for mvp like... Like all time.

I'm a total weeb for this class, I absolutely admit that... But they were the absolutely right design at the perfectly right time, designed with enough room for upgrades and built in the right quantities to earn this title. Pic not game related btw, never played wowarships.
It's just a nomination btw, you can all think different, but I'm pretty keen about this...

Attached: 515bb76d150488abd1c1c17b8739e7f6.jpg (2835x1595, 705K)

South Dakotas are better armed, armored and better AA. Bismarck is faster which is significant but also significantly larger and more expensive.
Basically there's a good reason I specified them as the best treaty battleships, because without the treaty you get into yamato and then iowa discussions.

Shoukaku class was fine but has hard competition with Yorktown, Ark Royal and arguably Illustrious class for best pre/early war carriers. Everything else except Yamato class was just woefully obsolete

German ships were better in literally every way

kek

better one way submarines you mean

Only if the Iowa was using super heavy shells which Iowa rarely carried

Attached: 1cb85v.jpg (300x225, 36K)

>which Iowa rarely carried
Fucking retard, the only other shells it carried were HC(Basically HE) for shore bombardments

I wouldn't say better, but rather each navy designed around the theater of war they were operating in. XXI being the exception to the rule.

Ok, but whether or not they carried them at all there was a stock of them specifically made for that purpose.

You know nothing

Could you try rewriting that, I genuinely don't understand what you mean.
Anyway you seem to have a misunderstanding of american shells, you seem to think that superheavy shells are comparable to something like APCR for tanks, which they aren't, all AP shells carried by Iowa were super heavy shells.

In what world are Fetcher class destroyers better than than the battle or tribal class destroyers of the RN?

RN destroyers led the way with their radar and asdic equipment.

>submarines were faster, deeper and could dive longer
>battleships had better gund and armor and were faster
>destroyers had better speed
>more technologically advanced than anyone else
The only reason these ships didnt wreck your shit was because the Kriegsmarine was staffed with traitors

Says the anonymous guy on the internet.

>>more technologically advanced than anyone else

lmao

Its literally fact. Americans wanted to keep the German ships for themselves because of how good they were, but had to scuttle them because they couldn't figure out how to work them

By having more balanced guns and torpedoes with better fire control and a far better track record.
Also discussion on what the question is, I'm one of the many who said fletcher and it's not just about "who would win in a fight" but if you could only produce one class, would you pick the specialized tribal or the master of all fletcher class

only XXI
yeah no
no and their destroyers were terrible because they mounted bad 150mm guns on them
How are those VT fuzes?

>Its literally fact.

Except it was the Royal Navy who developed and deployed radar, sonar and proximity fuses. What technology did Germany deploy at sea first outside of the u-boats? ( a technology they invested in because they knew they couldn't compete on the surface)

>The only reason these ships didnt wreck your shit was because the Kriegsmarine was staffed with traitors

Didn't the RN send the 3 top u-boat aces to the bottom of the sea in March 1941?

Germans perfected all of those things and used them far better than the RN, even with a traitorous high command sabotaging them.

Tell me, how's the hood doing?

Wrong, that would be the Russians who had better ships. They literally perfected modern naval combat.

Ah the rare naval wehraboo. The US kept two classes because of a one off propulsion and interesting hull design. The propulsion went know where as most navies figures out snorkels at the same time and the hull wasn't really used for the Tangs post war. Overall, the US were longer range and more effective then German subs, even with the Mark 14 torpedos.

Then tell me why Germany had the best naval K:D ratio of the war?

They didn't

By all unbiased accounts, they literally did.

>battleships had better gund and armor and were faster
American did not have 11 or 15 inch gun, but compar to other Eropean Navy German, France and Italy 15 inch are very comparable with Italy comes out ahead in power for worse barrel life. Ofcourse bong 15 inch is much older but still hold advantage on barrel life, accuracy and deck penetration.
>destroyers had better speed
While being larger and heavier, has worse range, worse AA, worse ASW.
>more technologically advanced than anyone else
Care to elaborate? I can only think of their submarine force.

Attached: 1558032999024.png (960x741, 533K)

>Better armor

Krupp armor was shitty and outdated, they didn't even test capped projectiles against their armor. The best naval armor in the world was US, and the Iowa was arguably the best protected ship of the war relative to its weight and the threats it would face.

Post some "unbiased accounts" then. I'm guessing you count civilian convoys as naval losses or ships sunk by land based aircraft as naval victories

K:D in war mattering. If that logic worked the Germans should have one every theater. Weird how that worked out. Oh and if you include merchant shipping its America by far.

Was there ever an American Cruiser called the Bismarck? Would be funny.

>Germans perfected all of those things and used them far better than the RN,

The delusion is hilarious

>Tell me, how's the hood doing?

it was scuttled

There was a USS Bismarck Sea which was an Escort Carrier, but not a USS Bismarck.

>K:D in war mattering.

It does when it comes to military vessels. Unfortunately for Germany, they military tonnage they sank wasn't that good

yeah its a pity the KGVs were buil to treaties no one else was honoring.

would have been funny to see the ship the british wanted to build facing Bismarck.

about the same weight as bismarck, but 3x3 16 inch guns and essentially the same armor layout as the KGVs - so significantly better than bismarck.

would have been nearly as one sided as the battle of north cape

not the kreigsboo user but....
>Overall, the US were longer range and more effective then German subs
They were only longer ranged because they needed to be for the Pacific and I would only say they were more effective within their theatre of operations. An american fleet boat in the Atlantic would be easy meat for allied asw measures due to their huge size, mediocre test depth, and slow dive time.
>even with the Mark 14 torpedos.
They ironed those out eventually like the germans did theirs. It was a decent torpedo by mid-late 43'

>The best naval armor in the world was US
kind of true, the british plate was actually equal in quality terms.

the difference was the americans used slightly thicker plates because they werent building to treaty.

>battleships had better gund and armor and were faster
well thats kind of a mixed bag, some of the german battleships were faster than some of the US ones, none of them had better guns than the US 16 inch guns and half of them had worse guns than any US or british battleship. and the armor was not good, failing on every occasion to prevent crippling damage to the german ships.

>destroyers had better speed
and worse seakeeping, armament and fire control.

>more technologically advanced than anyone else
piss poor radar, no HA/LA dp guns on battleships, outdated armor layout and metallurgy. some nice guns but fuck all else

>failing on every occasion to prevent crippling damage to the german ships.
eh, the armor was good and if it wasn't Bismarck wouldn't have stayed afloat so long while getting gang raped by the rn. Was it up to us standards? no but it was acceptable.

>the difference was the americans used slightly thicker plates because they werent building to treaty.
All except the iowas were though, and even then they were within the treaty's escalator clause. NCs and Sodaks were within treaty limits in terms of tonnage but with escalator clause invoked for 16 inch guns, which KGVs considered but were further along in building than NCs so would be more expensive and they decided against it

>eh, the armor was good and if it wasn't Bismarck wouldn't have stayed afloat so long while getting gang raped by the rn.
Except the armor failed to do what it was supposed to do, stop Bismarck from being crippled.

...

Four shaft designs were able to steer without the rudders, Bismarck was basically uncontrollable when it wasn't using the rudders to steer.
That electrical failure was a combination of gun blast and faulty breakers being tied down to try and jump the fault. Turns out that repair didn't work, but it was the quickest option available at the time.
> SoDak wouldn't be able to catch Bismarck
I dunno, the Royal Navy managed to do so with the Nelsons.

jesus christ, you can't put armor on a rudder m8 and even if you could the underwater shockwave created by the torp detonation would have jammed the thing anyway

Good thing the Rudder was the only part of her that was knocked out of action before she sunk right?

>Four shaft designs were able to steer without the rudders, Bismarck was basically uncontrollable when it wasn't using the rudders to steer.
The problem with your logic is that Bismarck never "lost" her rudders. They were jammed hard over so even if you had 4 screws you would only go in circles unless the rudder was dynamited off. The Bismarck's captain considered this but was worried about damaging the screws therefore leaving the ship completely dead in the water.

CE plate or whatever? Supposedly the best against battleship guns.

Because Bismarck's rudder was crippled by Swordfish

Armor cannot protect everything dipshit, that's the case on every warship. Look what happened to south dakota at guadalcanal canal for instance. When you're being pounded on all sides by all sizes of artillery shit is going to break whether you like it or not

Basically I'm saying that when your ship is utterly unable to return fire after 40 minutes, the armor has failed, it doesn't matter whether it then takes forever to sink, it is non functional.
Now you could fairly argue that no amount of protection would have kept Bismarck safe and functional at the insane close ranges the fight descended but her fire control systems were awfully exposed as a design.

she had been penetrated twice by PoW before the latters guns broke down, once to the machine spaces and once in the fuel store, once engaged with KGV and Rodney she had her main guns knocked out within minutes and was on fire from stem to stern.

her armor failed to prevent her from being rendered unable to fight long before she sank

Jesus fucking christ, the Krauts tested Bismarck's ability to turn without using her rudders *before* it was destroyed by a Swordfish.

Go read the battle of guadacanal again, because it proves the exact opposite of what you think it does, South Dakota had technical not even related to the enemy and got lit up, yet she fired back once her power was up and runnig. Even when her main fire control was down, allowing her a full 5 salvos after the beating, the secondaries kept up.

Basically I'm saying that when your ship is utterly unable to return fire after 40 minutes, the armor has failed
At as close a range and as outnumbered and crippled as she was you could put any other battleship in her place and the results would be the same. First goes the gun directors with the superstructure and it all goes downhill from there, which is exactly what happened to the Bismarck.

>doesn’t like Jow Forums anime girls
You’re the faggot here bud