Best Warships in active Service in 1Sept39

[AdA]

Pretty much what it says. Ships must be on active duty (comissioned) by that date. Not sure if a thread just like this one has already been done, I'm only here since 2010...
I'll post my choices first and justify them in later posts:
CV - Yorktown
BB - Nagato
CA - Takao
Cl - Edinburgh
DD - Sims
DE/CV/FF - Orsa
SSK – O19
MTB – S Boat M1937

[sharlin]

CV - Yorktown Class with the Ark Royal coming a good 2nd place.
BB - Tough one, either the Nagto or Nelson class
CL - Edinburg or Brooklyn Class
CA - Tough one, but i'd say the New Orleans class, good guns, good armour, all round capable. The IJN's cruisers loose out because of piss poor protection on their turrets and splodo-torpedos that killed more of them than they killed hostile ships. The RN's county's earn a honourable mention even if they had poor protection.
DD - Tribal Class - sleek, sexy and capable.

[HMS Warspite]

Pretty much what it says. Ships must be on active duty (comissioned) by that date. Not sure if a thread just like this one has already been done, I'm only here since 2010...
I'll post my choices first and justify them in later posts:
CV - Yorktown
BB - Nagato
CA - Takao
Cl - Edinburgh
DD - Sims
DE/CV/FF - Orca
SSK – O19
MTB – S Boat M1937


You cannot compare different types of warships with eachother, sicne each type is designed for a number of specific roles. Even within a certain sort of types, the missionprofile might be completely different, such as a regional specification, like most Mediteranean fleets had, sicne these had no interest in the sort of oceanwide deployement found in Pacific bound nations.

Example: the Yorktown class might be considered very good for Pacific purposes, but was a much less capable ship, when deployed in enclosed waters, like the Mediteranean Sea, with large hostile airforces on landbases everywhere. Her light construction would have given serious problems, when facing the sort of dangers found there. An Illustrious Class ship, with an armored flightdeck was a better option there, but this ship was unsuited for long range operations in the Pacific, due to its relatively short radius and limmited airgroup. These differences can occur within a single type, in this case the CV, so a problem is born.

[AdA]

You cannot compare different types of warships with eachother, sicne each type is designed for a number of specific roles. Even within a certain sort of types, the missionprofile might be completely different, such as a regional specification, like most Mediteranean fleets had, sicne these had no interest in the sort of oceanwide deployement found in Pacific bound nations.

Example: the Yorktown class might be considered very good for Pacific purposes, but was a much less capable ship, when deployed in enclosed waters, like the Mediteranean Sea, with large hostile airforces on landbases everywhere. Her light construction would have given serious problems, when facing the sort of dangers found there. An Illustrious Class ship, with an armored flightdeck was a better option there, but this ship was unsuited for long range operations in the Pacific, due to its relatively short radius and limmited airgroup. These differences can occur within a single type, in this case the CV, so a problem is born.

Fine argument if we were going to award large prizes. Assuming we're doing this for fun, I've often learned quite a bit and had a few leisurely coffe breaks discussing personel opinions with fellow AH folks

[AdA]

CV - Yorktown Class with the Ark Royal coming a good 2nd place.
BB - Tough one, either the Nagto or Nelson class
CL - Edinburg or Brooklyn Class
CA - Tough one, but i'd say the New Orleans class, good guns, good armour, all round capable. The IJN's cruisers loose out because of piss poor protection on their turrets and splodo-torpedos that killed more of them than they killed hostile ships. The RN's county's earn a honourable mention even if they had poor protection.
DD - Tribal Class - sleek, sexy and capable.

Nagato coukd dictate an engagment with Nelson because of a significant speed adavantage. Nelson with better guns and two more knots of speed would have been the best, but in it's original form it was flawed.
The Tribals lacked DP guns. The excelent DP 5''/38 was the reason I picked the Sims.
The 24'' Long Lance torps had its flaws, but when they worked they were lethal and its range/speed gave a captain more options.
The New orleans was not good design, but Wichita is eligible and arguably better. The only reason I didn't choose it was lack of torpedos.

[Astrodragon]

Nagato coukd dictate an engagment with Nelson because of a significant speed adavantage. Nelson with better guns and two more knots of speed would have been the best, but in it's original form it was flawed.
The Tribals lacked DP guns. The excelent DP 5''/38 was the reason I picked the Sims.
The 24'' Long Lance torps had its flaws, but when they worked they were lethal and its range/speed gave a captain more options.
The New orleans was not good design, but Wichita is eligible and arguably better. The only reason I didn't choose it was lack of torpedos.

Given the uselessness of HA guns on an unstabilised destroyer, the DP nature of the Sims armament is pretty probematical, to say the least.

Sims - 4x5" guns, 2 40mm, 8TT (as comissioned in August 1939)
Tribal - 8x4.7" (heavier shell than the US 5"), 4 2-pdr, 8x0,5" mg, 4TT.

Sims will lose an engan=gment witha Tribal with twice the gunpower, and has much less AA defence...I's say the Tribal is the best GP destroyer for the first few years of the war.

[AdA]

Given the uselessness of HA guns on an unstabilised destroyer, the DP nature of the Sims armament is pretty probematical, to say the least.

Sims - 4x5" guns, 2 40mm, 8TT (as comissioned in August 1939)
Tribal - 8x4.7" (heavier shell than the US 5"), 4 2-pdr, 8x0,5" mg, 4TT.

Sims will lose an engan=gment witha Tribal with twice the gunpower, and has much less AA defence...I's say the Tribal is the best GP destroyer for the first few years of the war.

The Sims introduced the excelent Mk37 fire control system that made her the first Destroyer with real DP capability.

The Sims class introduced installation of Mark 37 Gun Fire Control System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_37_Gun_Fire_Control_System).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sims_class_destroyer#cite_note-0) Distinguished by a turret mounted gun director, the advanced system controlled by a Ford Mark 1 Fire Control Computer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_I_Fire_Control_Computer) mounted deep in the hull enabled automatic aiming of guns against surface or air targets with first-hit solutions in near real-time. The system would evolve and be used extensively to control most 5 inch guns on destroyers and larger ships, and remained in service on US ships until 1969.

Wiki

[sharlin]

True but the Simm's didn't have the weapons to use the Mk37. The Tribal was a superior ship for the time. The best US destroyer was the Fletcher i'd personally say. Great armament, the superb mk37 and the little things were tough buggers.

[AdA]

The Tribals were the British entry into the super destroyer class. This had been something of a french thing, the idea being of a ship with good antiship fighting power and speed for agressive scouting actions. If you like the concept, you have to compare it with the french Mogador that has more firepower and speed.
Plus the 40mm pom pom was only good on paper.

[lionhead]

CV-Yorktown
BB-Tennessee
CA-Mogami
CL-Edinburgh
DD-Asashio
SS- type VII

I'm going to have to mention the Soryu class Carriers. Also, the Tennessee class battleships.

Just as i think the Yorktown class are not that much superior too the Soryu class and the Nelson class not much superior too the Tennessee class either. It basically comes down too its crew. But the Littorio i think was a great design, brilliant perhaps. Only outclassed by the King George V and North Carolina clas battleships that came later.

Also the Zara class cruisers of the Regia Marina are not outclassed by British or American variants. But i like the mogami class better.

[AdA]

True but the Simm's didn't have the weapons to use the Mk37. The Tribal was a superior ship for the time. The best US destroyer was the Fletcher i'd personally say. Great armament, the superb mk37 and the little things were tough buggers.

But the Fletcher was a later non elegible ship. The 5''/38 on the Sims were DP.

When coupled with the Mark 37 Fire Control System, used on most US warships built between 1939 and 1946, these guns were also effective in the AA role. For example, during gunnery trials in 1941, USS North Carolina (BB-55) was able to repeatedly shoot down drone aircraft at altitudes of 12,000 to 13,000 feet (3,700 to 4,000 m), about double the range of the 5"/25 (12.7 cm) AA Mark 10 (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-25_mk10.htm) used on older ships

Navweapons site

[sharlin]

For its time the 2lber was a good weapon the French ships sacrificed too much for their balls out speed.

Their AA guns were limited to say the least, their hull strength was suspect as they had to be built light to get the speed, their guns were apparently slow firing and a bugger to reload and they were more thirsty than a Ferrari being driven in first gear with the pedal on the floor giving them a lousy range.

[AdA]

CV-Yorktown
BB-Littorio
CA-Mogami
CL-Edinburgh
DD-Asashio
SS- type VII

I'm going to have to mention the Soryu class Carriers. Also, the Tennessee class battleships.

Just as i think the Yorktown class are not that much superior too the Soryu class and the Nelson class not much superior too the Tennessee class either. It basically comes down too its crew. But the Littorio i think was a great design, brilliant perhaps. Only outclassed by the King George V and North Carolina clas battleships that came later.

Also the Zara class cruisers of the Regia Marina are not outclassed by British or American variants. But i like the mogami class better.

Sorry, but Littorio was comissioned after 1SET39. I choose that date to keep this within prewar designs, and to avoid a repeat of the common "best warships of WW2" discussions. The in service rule avoids the entry of paper warships, of wich we lack defenitive info, like the Lion class BB
Soryu was underprotected, had a smaller airgroup (please note that IJN carriers had both ready to fly and "some assembly required" aircraft, and only the first are really the airgroup, the later were spares. They also lacked catapults, not essencial for their light aircraft, but limiting the possibility of using heavier types if required.
Zara was a very good design. They have a unfair rep for being caught at the wrong end of a lot of 15'' firepower.
Asashio guns were "almost" DP they had too slow tracking for AA work and lacked state of the art fire control.
But wonderful ship for a torpedo fan 8 long lancers with four reloads!!
the type VII was not that good a design. It was what the germans had, and is known for what it did not what it was.
For its size the italian Argo was a better design, that lead to the excelente post 1939 Flutto class.

[sharlin]

Good point about the Zaras, they were probably the only heavy cruisers the Italians got right, even if they were considerably overweight they had good armour and solved the gun dispersion problems with their 8 inch main armament.

And yeah, lots of negative press but any cruiser and most battleships in the world, hell even a Des Moines or Iowa would have come apart if it was exposed to 15 inch gunfire at I think 3500 yards.

[lionhead]

Right, sorry. I thought at least the Littorio was already commissioned before Sept 1939, but outfitting and trials took very long appearently.

Well then i choose the Tennessee class. beautifull ships.

[sharlin]

I never liked the look of the Standards, they looked...clunky, HUEG turrets, the big lattice masts and lil pin head funnels. Great ships for sure, but not that visually pleasing.

[NHBL]

I think the Standards were actually good looking ships--they looked like they mean business. Even so, for looks, they don't hold a candle to the South Dakotas, (Though they're outside the timeframe...)

[Lord_Thrawn]

CV- Yorktown class. Against torpedoes flawed, but armoured deck carriers are also vulnerable. Bigger CAP helps other ships in the fleet, too. Ark Royal is second, maybe tied with Akagi.

BB- Nagato's, then Colorado, then Tennessee, then British. The power of modernization...

I am weak on the other classes, so no info there...

[CalBear]

CV-Yorktown
BB-Tennessee
CA-Mogami
CL-Edinburgh
DD-Asashio
SS- type VII

I'm going to have to mention the Soryu class Carriers. Also, the Tennessee class battleships.

Just as i think the Yorktown class are not that much superior too the Soryu class and the Nelson class not much superior too the Tennessee class either. It basically comes down too its crew. But the Littorio i think was a great design, brilliant perhaps. Only outclassed by the King George V and North Carolina clas battleships that came later.

Also the Zara class cruisers of the Regia Marina are not outclassed by British or American variants. But i like the mogami class better.

The Soryus were a dreadful design. Utter death traps with pitiful survivability. The Yorktowns were much more survivable, although vulnerable to torpedo damage. The Yorktowns also had much more useful range, a far greater maximum air wing (perhaps best illustrated by the fact that at Midway three Yorktowns had virtually the same available aircraft as four Japanese carriers (230 vs 240) , including the outsized Kaga and Akagi (the Lexingtons carried, or could carry, almost 25% more aircraft than the IJN Treaty conversions, the Yorktowns carried the same size airwing as the Akagi)

[AdA]

I just realised my autocorrect had turned Orsa into the more English compatible Orca. If anyone was asking WTF is a Orca class CV I'm sorry.

[Kome]

CV - Yorktown
--Not really a contest here as far as im concerned.
BB - Nagato
--The Colorodos and Nelsons being the only competitors for the title here, and i think the Nagato's superior to both.
CL - Kitikami (jk)
--Theoretically firing 40 Long Lance torpedoes at a single target would probably be enough to kill anything. :p
DD - Kagero
--In my opinion the best destroyer of early WW2. Unfortunately the first one was commissioned in November so is an invalid entry for this contest. >.<

[Astrodragon]

The Sims introduced the excelent Mk37 fire control system that made her the first Destroyer with real DP capability.

The Sims class introduced installation of Mark 37 Gun Fire Control System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_37_Gun_Fire_Control_System).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sims_class_destroyer#cite_note-0) Distinguished by a turret mounted gun director, the advanced system controlled by a Ford Mark 1 Fire Control Computer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_I_Fire_Control_Computer) mounted deep in the hull enabled automatic aiming of guns against surface or air targets with first-hit solutions in near real-time. The system would evolve and be used extensively to control most 5 inch guns on destroyers and larger ships, and remained in service on US ships until 1969.

Wiki

Which is nice, but the destroyer is still unstabilised.... Before stabilisers you needed a reasonable size ship for a decent chance with HA guns,

[Astrodragon]

CL - Kitikami (jk)
--Theoretically firing 40 Long Lance torpedoes at a single target would probably be enough to kill anything. :p


Except that in RL they didn't....:D:p

[AdA]

CV - Yorktown
--Not really a contest here as far as im concerned.
BB - Nagato
--The Colorodos and Nelsons being the only competitors for the title here, and i think the Nagato's superior to both.
CL - Kitikami (jk)
--Theoretically firing 40 Long Lance torpedoes at a single target would probably be enough to kill anything. :p
DD - Kagero
--In my opinion the best destroyer of early WW2. Unfortunately the first one was commissioned in November so is an invalid entry for this contest. >.<

The original special type DD, the Fubukis, were rebuilt in 37/38 to an extent that makes then nearly Kageros. You could enter them as the next best thing.

[AdA]

Except that in RL they didn't....:D:p

The crews of Camberra, Chicago, Astoria, Quincy, Vincennes certainly thought otherwise in the morning of August 9th 1942..

[AdA]

Which is nice, but the destroyer is still unstabilised.... Before stabilisers you needed a reasonable size ship for a decent chance with HA guns,

Whatever you call decent, no Destroyer in the world had better one in 1939.
The Dutch were fitting twin stabilised 40mm to their new ships, but they were not ready in time.

[brazen]

CV - Yorktown
BB - HMS Renown - look at it's war record before you say no, nagato did nothing but hold a pier up all war.
CA - Zaras
Cl - Arethusas - best small cl of the war
DD - L Class - specifically the 4" armed versions
DE/CV/FF - Bittern class sloops for ASW, Flores class for rule of cool :D
SSK – IX Class
MTB – S Boat M1937

[Zulufoxtrot]

CV- Yorktown
BB- Nagato
CA- Mogami
CL- La Galissonnière
DD- Tribal

Also for Battlehips, while certainly not the "best" I feel like the Queen Elizabeth Class deserves an honorable mention for how much they did in spite of their age and short comings.

[AdA]

CV - Yorktown
BB - HMS Renown - look at it's war record before you say no, nagato did nothing but hold a pier up all war.
CA - Zaras
Cl - Arethusas - best small cl of the war
DD - L Class - specifically the 4" armed versions
DE/CV/FF - Bittern class sloops for ASW, Flores class for rule of cool :D
SSK – IX Class
MTB – S Boat M1937

Both the L class and the Flowers are wartime commissions.
Renown was a lucky ship. It lacked the protection necessary to engage a BB.

[sharlin]

True but thanks to her refit she was arguably a better ship than the Hood.

[AdA]

True but thanks to her refit she was arguably a better ship than the Hood.

Sure, but that only gives her a better chance at best BC. By 1939 people should have learned not to bring a BC to a BB fight. Renown survived a meet with two "light" BB but there was a lot of luck there. Her refit was very well thought out, but Queen Elizabeth got very much the same mods and was a real BB.

[lionhead]

The Soryus were a dreadful design. Utter death traps with pitiful survivability. The Yorktowns were much more survivable, although vulnerable to torpedo damage. The Yorktowns also had much more useful range, a far greater maximum air wing (perhaps best illustrated by the fact that at Midway three Yorktowns had virtually the same available aircraft as four Japanese carriers (230 vs 240) , including the outsized Kaga and Akagi (the Lexingtons carried, or could carry, almost 25% more aircraft than the IJN Treaty conversions, the Yorktowns carried the same size airwing as the Akagi)

Yes, thats all true of course, thats why i only mentioned it. But it had a superior crew at that time. Well trained and determined. Of course at Midway that didn't really help...

I don't get why people choose other BB's above the Tennessee.

[brazen]

Both the L class and the Flowers are wartime commissions.
Renown was a lucky ship. It lacked the protection necessary to engage a BB.


The Dutch Flores class were commissioned in the early 30s, you need to stop posting before your coffee in the morning.:D

Ok no L class, I'll go for the J + Ks then, heavy gun armament, really heavy torpedo armament and good sea boats so they can use them in all weather.

Destroyer heavy AA is a moot point as until the advent of VE fuses it was only really a deterrent effect, the Pompoms, 20mm or Bofors guns were the real defence against aircraft.

"HMS Renown just a lucky ship", name me another ship that is as fast, as well armed with a high quality AA armament and a full set of up to date optics, radar and gun controls in 1939.

She held off 2 newer ships in the Norwegian sea and basically held up one end of the med for almost 12 months. After that she was the RNs carrier escort par excellence. In fact I would say the only BBs better at carrier escort were the Iowa's. They were the only other ships capable of a sustained 30 knots with a heavy AA fit to run with the carriers. She was used as she was supposed to be used during WW2 and carried out her roles well, plus she was a fine looking ship:p.

I would go as far to say the RN would have been better not modernising Valiant and modernising Repulse along the lines of Renown getting a more useful ship in the process.

[brazen]

Sure, but that only gives her a better chance at best BC. By 1939 people should have learned not to bring a BC to a BB fight. Renown survived a meet with two "light" BB but there was a lot of luck there. Her refit was very well thought out, but Queen Elizabeth got very much the same mods and was a real BB.

So she fought 2 BBs in open water, took a couple of hits from main guns and shrugged them off with no serious damage, and knocked out the gun laying controls on one and drove the 2 BBs off.

What luck did she have AdA, she did what she was designed to do. She was never going to fight a post treaty BB as the RN knew she was not up to it, I would argue that no pre treaty BB no matter how well modernised was up to fighting KGVs, North Carolinas,Iowas, Bismarks or Littorios and winning.

[AdA]

Renown was given new deck armour but with 4'' over magazines and 2,5 to 3'' elsewhere, but this was done in the first refit. Her new main belt was 9''.

Nagato was also modernised, and she was left layered horizontal protection and she was much beter protected than the Renown.she also had a significant firepower advantage, her 8 16'' guns being more powerful than the Renown six 15''.
The two things that the Renown has are speed, and AA firepower, but when she faced the Bismarck she was ordered to engage only if both KGV and Rodney were allready heavily engaged. (Repulse was ordered to stay 5000 outside of KGV and not to engage until the BB had at the same action).
If you see Battleships as carrier escorts, Renown wins. If you still believe in Battleships as such in WW2 Nagato wins.
Regarding luck, the 11'' guns of the S&G were designed for plunging fire against BB, so a few hits from the 18 barrels firing at Renown could have crippled her.

Being Portuguese, I read Flores for Flowers, since that's how we write flowers in Portuguese. With my trusted copy of Jane's Fighting Ships of WW2 at hand, I now have to ask, we're those ships a bit old, slow, and lacking in either strong AA or ASW weapons? As built they had 3x150mm, 1x75mm (later replaced by 3x40mm and did 15knots top. Sounds like a colonial Gun Boat to me.

[sharlin]

The Flower class corvette? It was a trawler that was used as an anti-submarine escort, it was successful though if an absolute pig for its crew in terms of habitability.

[wietze]

CV-Yorktown
BB-Tennessee
CA-Mogami
CL-Edinburgh
DD-Asashio
SS- type VII
.

the dutch O19 class beats the VII hands down (and also better than the IX), maybe lacks in some details, but an overall better usable sub @ 10K nm range and snorkel fittings, O21 is even better, but that is not within OP limits

[brazen]

Renown was given new deck armour but with 4'' over magazines and 2,5 to 3'' elsewhere, but this was done in the first refit. Her new main belt was 9''.

Nagato was also modernised, and she was left layered horizontal protection and she was much beter protected than the Renown.she also had a significant firepower advantage, her 8 16'' guns being more powerful than the Renown six 15''.

The two things that the Renown has are speed, and AA firepower, but when she faced the Bismarck she was ordered to engage only if both KGV and Rodney were allready heavily engaged. (Repulse was ordered to stay 5000 outside of KGV and not to engage until the BB had at the same action).
If you see Battleships as carrier escorts, Renown wins. If you still believe in Battleships as such in WW2 Nagato wins.
Regarding luck, the 11'' guns of the S&G were designed for plunging fire against BB, so a few hits from the 18 barrels firing at Renown could have crippled her.

Being Portuguese, I read Flores for Flowers, since that's how we write flowers in Portuguese. With my trusted copy of Jane's Fighting Ships of WW2 at hand, I now have to ask, we're those ships a bit old, slow, and lacking in either strong AA or ASW weapons? As built they had 3x150mm, 1x75mm (later replaced by 3x40mm and did 15knots top. Sounds like a colonial Gun Boat to me.



Could have, should have, would have......

They didn't, kinda makes my point.

Renown gave a full 5 1/2 years of quality service to the RN in WW2 in a wide range or roles, that to me says that it was the right design at the right time with more uses than the comparable battleships or BCs available at the time, Like I said no ship matched the combination of fire-power, speed and sensor package until the Iowas turned up (and outclassed everything else afloat). That's my opinion Im sure it does not match many others.

Have you actually read about the capabilities of the Flores class sloops, the shore bombardment role that they could carry out with extreme accuracy makes them very impressive for the size of the ship, indeed they were thought that good they disarmed a light cruiser to rearm them for D-day.

[sharlin]

I dunno, a Kongo or Dunquirke could probably give the Renown a run for its money, the Kongo class's refit was VERY successful and their levels of protection are roughly similar.

The Dunquirke class were fine ships, their armament suffered some issues with shell dispersion but they were fast, well armed and armoured.

[brazen]

I dunno, a Kongo or Dunquirke could probably give the Renown a run for its money, the Kongo class's refit was VERY successful and their levels of protection are roughly similar.

The Dunquirke class were fine ships, their armament suffered some issues with shell dispersion but they were fast, well armed and armoured.

the Kongos didn't have the AA suite, though they were very capable ships after the rebuild.

[sharlin]

No ship in 39 really had an effective AA suite though, but thats because they didn't predict how capable aircraft would become in such a short time.

[brazen]

No ship in 39 really had an effective AA suite though, but thats because they didn't predict how capable aircraft would become in such a short time.

True but it's a lot easier to upgrade your targeting equipment than it is to fit new Heavy AA guns.

[sharlin]

Aye but the IJN for some stupid reason never saw to upgrade its guns, either through lack of planning and industry or a dogged belief that it wasn't needed. :s

[brazen]

Aye but the IJN for some stupid reason never saw to upgrade its guns, either through lack of planning and industry or a dogged belief that it wasn't needed. :s

The Kongos were never out of action long enough I expect, such versatile ships were always in demand.

[sharlin]

That and the INJ never went beyond the 25mm which was a wretched weapon for its role by all accounts.

[brazen]

That and the INJ never went beyond the 25mm which was a wretched weapon for its role by all accounts.

The late war 3.9" was supposed to be a very capable weapon, heavy AA on a big stable platform while not massively effective a sooting down aircraft till VT fuses was very very off putting I would imagine.

[sharlin]

Aye but they needed to replace the 25mm weapon, they did work on a 40mm weapon but it was developed way too late and didn't enter service.

[AdA]

Regarding IJN AA the late war 3.9 was regarded as one of the best AA weapons of its era. Why they didn't copy the 40mm Bofors, the way the Army did with the 75mm, is hard to explain.
DP guns in Destroyers seem to be unconsensual among us, but they sure were consensual among navies in the 40s. All navies copied or adopted the US destroyer formula, and the Sims were the first of its kind, while the Tribals were the last of theirs.
Glad to see the O19 is appreciated. Some might find its mine laying capability a burden, but I think the possibility of snorkelling to a given area, mining it, and then having the range to go hunting with torpedoes is impressive.

The MTB class seems consensual. I was expecting a debate btw the heavier German school and the lighter Anglo/American style of boat.

[AdA]

The Kongos were never out of action long enough I expect, such versatile ships were always in demand.

The Kongos were rebuilt (for the second time) in the 30s gaining a lot in protection (and 4 twin 5'' AA). I always felt the RN should have rebuilt Tiger, Lion and Princess Royal instead of keeping 3 R class BB after Washington. Given a Renonw style modernisation, even if it meant sacrificing Q turret, they would have been very useful ships...
I'll admit to the people defending Renown that even if I don't agree that it was the best BB of 1939, I'm also a fan.

[sparky42]

The Kongos were rebuilt (for the second time) in the 30s gaining a lot in protection (and 4 twin 5'' AA). I always felt the RN should have rebuilt Tiger, Lion and Princess Royal instead of keeping 3 R class BB after Washington. Given a Renonw style modernisation, even if it meant sacrificing Q turret, they would have been very useful ships...
I'll admit to the people defending Renown that even if I don't agree that it was the best BB of 1939, I'm also a fan.

I suppose back then they may not have considered the need for fast escorts and given the experience of watching Jutland might have felt the R class were better to keep the gun line at the same speed

[brazen]

DP guns in Destroyers seem to be unconsensual among us, but they sure were consensual among navies in the 40s. All navies copied or adopted the US destroyer formula, and the Sims were the first of its kind, while the Tribals were the last of theirs.



Not quite sure what you mean by the Tribals being the last of theirs, can you clarify?

If your referring to DP guns, well there were several classes with only L/A weapons built and completed up to the end of the war. Also for the time they were commissioned the Tribals had some of the heaviest AA armament shipped onto a destroyer at the time, the 40° mounts for the twin 4.7" were also supposed to be AA capable, till actual wartime experience showed how ineffective the 40° elevation was for AA work.

DP guns are very desirable I think we all agree on that, it's just how effective they are on a small hull with lots of movement until VT fuses become available.

[eltf177]

Aye but they needed to replace the 25mm weapon, they did work on a 40mm weapon but it was developed way too late and didn't enter service.

Japan did built the 2pdr in single and twin versions but rarely fitted them to ships for some reason (MOGAMI and MIKUMA each had four when original built as CL's but during the rebuild to CA's they were replaced with twin 25mm).

Not the best but a few of these would have increased AA firepower.

[HMS Warspite]

Japan did built the 2pdr in single and twin versions but rarely fitted them to ships for some reason (MOGAMI and MIKUMA each had four when original built as CL's but during the rebuild to CA's they were replaced with twin 25mm).

Not the best but a few of these would have increased AA firepower.


These 40mm guns were actually very old models based on the Vickers 40mm/62 of before 1925, when several had been imported in Japan and were build in licence with the Vickers Co. It was based on the 2 pdr. Mk.VIII and in Japan only used in single and occasionally twin mountings. Its range was even less than the one of the Hotchkiss licence build 25mm, which also had a higher rate of fire.

[AdA]

Not quite sure what you mean by the Tribals being the last of theirs, can you clarify?

If your referring to DP guns, well there were several classes with only L/A weapons built and completed up to the end of the war. Also for the time they were commissioned the Tribals had some of the heaviest AA armament shipped onto a destroyer at the time, the 40° mounts for the twin 4.7" were also supposed to be AA capable, till actual wartime experience showed how ineffective the 40° elevation was for AA work.

DP guns are very desirable I think we all agree on that, it's just how effective they are on a small hull with lots of movement until VT fuses become available.

I was refering to the Tribals being designed primaraly as ASuW platforms. The later L&M, though being esencially designed for the same mission, were not superior to the Tribals, so I rate the Tribals as the "end product" of the surface action classic destroyer, with a balanced Gun/Torpedo mix.
The Battles were designed to a different set of goals.
If we were evaluating the ships in their later WW2 form, the modified Tribals with X turret replaced with a 4'' AA twin and extra AA guns were beter balanced than the original fit.
That they were excelent at their original mission was amply demonstrated, for example, in Norway. That their most dangerous foe were aircraft was demonstrated by their loss record.
It should'n be difficult to find an exception to my comment, but in general terms I see the Tribals as the end product of a (golden) era in the RN.

On another note, this is the ship I would have selected to compete in the Tribal class (ASuW/DD) if it had receivved it's intended weapon fit when it was comissioned in 1939. As designed, Taskhent had a weapons fit not unlike the wartime modified Tribals, and was faster and larger with harder hitting guns.
I think the italians should have built a class of Destroyers like this one for themselves after building it for the Soviets, instead of the later, bigger, Capitani Romani.

[AdA]

AFRIDI (http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-10DD-34Tribal-Afridi.htm)(Capt P L Vian), 3rd May 1940, Western Europe, NW of Namsos, Norway in Norwegian Sea (66.14N, 05.45E) - by German Ju.87 divebombers. Withdrawing after Allied evacuation of Namsos; 52 crew and around 50 rescued troops and survivors from French destroyer 'Bison' were lost (Norwegian Campaign)
BEDOUIN (http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-10DD-34Tribal-Bedouin.htm) (Cdr B G Scurfield), 15th June 1942, Central Mediterranean, off Pantelleria island in Strait of Sicily (36.12N, 11.38E) - by 6in-gunfire of Italian cruiser 'di Savoia' and torpedo aircraft. Close escort, Gibraltar/Malta convoy 'Harpoon'; 28 crew lost, 213 taken prisoner (Malta Convoys)
GURKHA (http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-10DD-34Tribal-Gurkha1.htm) (Cdr A W Buzzard), 9th April 1940, Western Europe, 100 miles SW of Bergen, Norway in North Sea - by German Ju.88 and He.111 bombers. Withdrawing with cruiser force from planned attack on Bergen during German invasion of Norway; 15 crew lost (Norwegian Campaign)
MAORI (http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-10DD-34Tribal-Maori.htm) (Cdr R E Courage), 12th February 1942, Central Mediterranean, Malta Grand Harbour - by one bomb from German bombers. In harbour as part of Malta-based destroyer strike force. Many of the crew ashore in shelters, sank at moorings with 2 man killed (North African Campaign)

MASHONA (http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-10DD-34Tribal-Mashona.htm) (Cdr W H Selby), 28th May 1941, North Atlantic, off Galway, western Ireland (c53.00N, 12.00W) - by German Ju.88 bombers. Returning from successful hunt for German battleship 'Bismarck'; 36 crew lost in the attack (Battle of the Atlantic
ZULU (http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-10DD-34Tribal-Zulu.htm)(Cdr R T White), 14th September 1942, Eastern Mediterranean, NW of Alexandria, Egypt (32.00N, 28.56E) - by Italian/German force of Ju.87 and Ju.88 bombers. Returning to Alexandria after combined operations raid on Tobruk (see 'Sikh' above); 39 crew lost, survivors rescued by escort destroyers ‘Croome’ and ‘Hursley’. Cruiser 'Coventry (http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-06CL-Coventry.htm)' also lost (North African Campaign)

[trekchu]

If we go by rule of cool, then clearly, there can be only one:

[sparky42]

AFRIDI (http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-10DD-34Tribal-Afridi.htm)(Capt P L Vian), 3rd May 1940, Western Europe, NW of Namsos, Norway in Norwegian Sea (66.14N, 05.45E) - by German Ju.87 divebombers. Withdrawing after Allied evacuation of Namsos; 52 crew and around 50 rescued troops and survivors from French destroyer 'Bison' were lost (Norwegian Campaign)
BEDOUIN (http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-10DD-34Tribal-Bedouin.htm) (Cdr B G Scurfield), 15th June 1942, Central Mediterranean, off Pantelleria island in Strait of Sicily (36.12N, 11.38E) - by 6in-gunfire of Italian cruiser 'di Savoia' and torpedo aircraft. Close escort, Gibraltar/Malta convoy 'Harpoon'; 28 crew lost, 213 taken prisoner (Malta Convoys)
GURKHA (http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-10DD-34Tribal-Gurkha1.htm)(Cdr A W Buzzard), 9th April 1940, Western Europe, 100 miles SW of Bergen, Norway in North Sea - by German Ju.88 and He.111 bombers. Withdrawing with cruiser force from planned attack on Bergen during German invasion of Norway; 15 crew lost (Norwegian Campaign)
MAORI (http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-10DD-34Tribal-Maori.htm) (Cdr R E Courage), 12th February 1942, Central Mediterranean, Malta Grand Harbour - by one bomb from German bombers. In harbour as part of Malta-based destroyer strike force. Many of the crew ashore in shelters, sank at moorings with 2 man killed (North African Campaign)

MASHONA (http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-10DD-34Tribal-Mashona.htm)(Cdr W H Selby), 28th May 1941, North Atlantic, off Galway, western Ireland (c53.00N, 12.00W) - by German Ju.88 bombers. Returning from successful hunt for German battleship 'Bismarck'; 36 crew lost in the attack (Battle of the Atlantic
ZULU (http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-10DD-34Tribal-Zulu.htm)(Cdr R T White), 14th September 1942, Eastern Mediterranean, NW of Alexandria, Egypt (32.00N, 28.56E) - by Italian/German force of Ju.87 and Ju.88 bombers. Returning to Alexandria after combined operations raid on Tobruk (see 'Sikh' above); 39 crew lost, survivors rescued by escort destroyers ‘Croome’ and ‘Hursley’. Cruiser 'Coventry (http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-06CL-Coventry.htm)' also lost (North African Campaign)


I'm not sure that Maori should count in the argument, if a portion of her crew were ashore then the damage control capabilities would have been reduced, also what level of readiness would she have in harbour (maybe taking on supplies).

As to those lost in the Norway campaign given that this was at the very start of the active phase of the war, doctrine/tactics about air attack wouldn't have been as developed yet

[brazen]

AdA, thats more or less what I thought you meant, however everything with the 4.7" guns from the O class to the Z class Destoryers were armed only for Asu work with only a single 4" HA gun. This was part of a decison on the part of the admiralty to make more smaller destroyers for higher availablity and use what was avaible to arm them.

It's a shame that they did not use a J+K hull with the 4" duals as used on the Hunts as the wartime standard destroyer. The late war Canadian Tribals and the 4" L class are an example of how RN destroyers should have been armed.

I would prefer the Grom class Polish ships to the Tashkents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grom_class_destroyer

[AdA]

[
I would prefer the Grom class Polish ships to the Tashkents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grom_class_destroyer[/QUOTE]


A matter of taste, I'd think.

[AdA]

If we go by rule of cool, then clearly, there can be only one:

I'd have to object on the grounds that it lacks a capable AAhttp://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/images/icons/icon12.gif
Outsanding fuel econnomy, though...

[trekchu]

Considering it's HMS Victory, bombs and torpedoes would just bounce off the awesome shield that surrounds it.

[Richter von Manthofen]

CV - HMS Ark Royal - I prefer armored Cvs to carrying capacity (yay thinking of nearby airbases ;))

BB - The Nelsons (nagato being equal, but as I am RN fanboy ;))

CA - TOne (just love to have scout planes around - though doctrine did not favor this)

CL - De Ruyter - I am well aware of her weaknesses, but IMO the design was an excellent AA Cruiser - and thats the only real role CLs fulfilled in WWII

DD - Le Fantasque class

CE and the like - don't know, but I'd say the German Flottenbegleiter (most DE classes were only ordered during war) - maybe the SBooats though the better variants were commissioned well into the war.

SS - British T-class

[Archdevil]

How about the Mogador (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mogador_class_destroyer) class destroyers?

[AdA]

How about the Mogador (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mogador_class_destroyer) class destroyers?

On paper the best ASuW DD of the period. Reported by many to have a number of minor tech problems that the freench sources claim were solved in service.

[sonofpegasus]

Light cruiser, RN Leander Class (just ask Graf Spee) But I am biased my grand father designed her amongst other RN cruisers!

Frigate, Black Swan class, Good sea boat. reasonably quick for an escort and a very good DP 4" fit pluss quad pom pom in 1939,
As to the other classes, to me it's an open book and a matter of taste.

[AdA]

Light cruiser, RN Leander Class (just ask Graf Spee) But I am biased my grand father designed her amongst other RN cruisers!

Frigate, Black Swan class, Good sea boat. reasonably quick for an escort and a very good DP 4" fit pluss quad pom pom in 1939,
As to the other classes, to me it's an open book and a matter of taste.

The Black Swans were only comissioned after the war started. You can have the Egret class, but you loose ASW capability.
I like the idea of comparing pre war ships because: 1. War time ships have been discussed to death 2. We're at peace (sort of) now so we can draw more paralels with the design process in the 20/30s

[AdA]

Time to justify some of my choices...
1st, the Orsas...
There were lots of excelent escort vessel designs being built in 1939, but one country had already comissioned an excelent well balanced one. The Italians had taken the basic 600t torpedo boat concept, enlarged it to increase range at the cost of a slight reduction on speed, given it a reduced gun armement but a much stronger ASW fit, and came up with a superb multirole escort.
840t standard
28 knots
2x100mm guns
8xAA HMG (later replaced by 7x20mm)
4x 18''TT
6xDCT
fitted for 20 mines giving them adicional multi role capability
good combat record
"Pegaso (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Italian_torpedo_boat_Pegaso&action=edit&redlink=1)BS Napoletani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naples)8 December 1936Sank British submarines HMS Upholder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Upholder_(P37)) and HMS Thorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Thorn_(N11)). She was part of the screen of destroyers and torpedo boats escorting a four-freighter convoy to Tripoli on 26 May 1941,[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orsa_class_torpedo_boat#cite_note-2) when two Blenheim bombers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blenheim_bomber) were shot down.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orsa_class_torpedo_boat#cite_note-3) She also took part in the shooting down of a Beaufort (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Beaufort) bomber and a Beaufighter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Beaufighter) while escorting another convoy on 21 August 1942" wiki
and they looked good