Battleships sunk in World War 2

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

This post was inspired by a thread about a month ago on battleships sunk by air attack while in the open ocean. Anyways, here are the stats

EDIT: Updated minor navy info.

Battleships in service during WW2:

Royal Navy - 21 total
5 Queen Elizabeth class
5 Revenge class
2 Repulse class
1 Hood class
2 Nelson class
5 King George V class
1 Vanguard class

United States Navy - 27 total
2 New York class
2 Nevada class
2 Pennsylvania class
3 New Mexico class
2 Tennessee class
4 Colorado class
2 North Carolina class
4 South Dakota class
4 Iowa class
2 Alaska class

Kriegsmarine - 9 total
2 Deutschland class
2 Bismarck class
2 Scharnhorst class
3 Deutschland class (Panzerschiffe)

French Navy - 10 total
3 Courbet class
3 Bretagne class
2 Dunkerque class
2 Richelieu class

Italian Navy - 7 total
2 Cavour class
2 Andrea Doria class
3 Littorio class

Imperial Japanese Navy - 12 total
4 Kongo class
2 Fuso class
2 Ise class
2 Nagato class
2 Yamato class

Soviet Navy - 4 total
1 Revenge class on loan from the Royal Navy
3 Gangut class

Danish Navy - 1 total
1 Niels Juel class - http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/ reports that this battleship was sunk in Eckenforde by air bombing on May 3, 1945 but I can't find any more info.

Greek Navy - 2 total
2 Battleships, the Kilkis (formerly USS Mississippi, BB-23) and the Limnos (formerly USS Idaho, BB-24), both Mississippi class battleships.

Royal Dutch Navy - 1 total
Operated some coastal defense battleships such as HNLMS De Zeven Provincien.

Norwegian Navy - 2 total
2 Eidsvold class

Finnish Navy - 2 total
2 Vainamoinen class

Battleships sunk during WW2:

Sunk by air attack, in open water:
HMS Repulse, sunk by Japanese aircraft off Malaya, December 10 1941 with loss of 436 crew.

HMS Prince of Wales, sunk by Japanese aircraft off Malaya, December 10 1941 with loss of 327 crew.

Italian battleship Roma, sunk by Luftwaffe Fritz-X glider bombs on September 9, 1943 with loss of 1,353 crew.

INS Hiei, sunk by US Navy and USAF aircraft off of Guadalcanal, November 13, 1942 with loss of 188 crew.

INS Musashi, sunk by US Navy aircraft during the Battle of Leyte Gulf on October 24, 1944 with loss of over 1,000 crew.

INS Yamato, sunk by US air attacks off of Okinawa April 7, 1945 with loss of 2,475 men.

Greek battleship Kilkis, sunk by Germany Ju-87 bombers in the Salamis Channel on April 23, 1941.

Greek battleship Limnos, sunk by Germany Ju-87 bombers in the Salamis Channel on April 23, 1941.

HNLMS De Zeven Provincien was sunk by Japanese bombers off of Surabaya, February 18, 1942. Raised by the Japanese and used as a floating battery, then sunk by allied bombers in 1943.

Sunk by air attack, in port:
USS Oklahoma, sunk by Japanese aircraft in Pearl Harbor, December 7 1941, with loss of 415 crew. Raised and re-fitted, but eventually scrapped.

USS Arizona, sunk by Japanese aircraft in Pearl Harbor, December 7 1941, with loss of 1,177 crew.

USS California, sunk by Japanese aircraft in Pearl Harbor, December 7 1941 with loss of 98 crew. Raised, repaired and returned to duty.

USS West Virginia, sunk by Japanese aircraft in Pearl Harbor, December 7 1941 with loss of 106 crew. Raised, repaired and returned to duty.

German battleship Schleswig-Holstein, sunk by RAF bombers in Gotenhaven Harbor December 19 1944.

German pocket battleship Admiral Hipper, sunk by RAF bombers in Kiel, April 9 1945 with loss of 32 crew.

Italian battleship Conte di Cavour, sunk by RN aircraft in Taranto, November 11 1940. Raised but never returned to active duty.

INS Haruna, sunk by USAF bombers in Kure July 28, 1945 with loss of 65 crew.

INS Ise, sunk by USAF bombers in Kure July 28, 1945.

Danish battleship Niels Juel, sunk in Eckenforde by allied bombing May 3, 1945.

Soviet battleship Marat, sunk by German Ju-87 dive bombers in Kronsdadt September 23, 1941, used as a stationary artillery battery.

Sunk in surface combat:
HMS Hood, sunk by German battleship Bismarck in the Battle of the Denmark Straight with loss of 1,415 crew.

German battlecruiser Scharnhorst sunk by HMS Duke of York and cruisers HMS Belfast, HMS Jamaica and HMS Norfolk off of Norway on December 26, 1943 with loss of 1,803 crew.

French battleship Bretagne, sunk by Royal Navy warships at Mers-el-Kebir with loss of 977 crew.

INS Kirishima, sunk by USS Washington off of Guadalcanal November 15, 1942.

INS Fuso, sunk by destroyer USS Melvin in the Battle of Leyte Gulf on October 25, 1944 with loss of around 1,400 crew.

INS Yamashiro, sunk by six US battleships in the Battle of Leyte Gulf on October 25, 1944.

HNoMSA Eidsvold, sunk by German destroyers in Narvik harbor, April 9, 1940 with loss of 175 crew.

HNoMSA Norge, sunk by German destroyers in Narvik harbor, April 9 1940, with loss of 101 crew.

Sunk by combination of surface and air attack:
German battleship Bismarck, sunk by combination of RN torpedo bombers, battleships and destroyers on May 27, 1941 with the loss of around 2,200 crew.

German battleship Tirpitz, attacked over several months by a combination of RN mini-sub attacks, RN aircraft, RAF bombers and finally sunk by RAF bombers in Tromso Harbor, Norway, November 12, 1944 with loss of 1,204 crew.

Sunk by submarine:
HMS Royal Oak, sunk by U-47 in Scapa Flow Naval Base, October 14 1939, with loss of 833 crew.

HMS Barham, sunk by U-331 off of Solum, November 25 1941 with loss of 862 crew.

INS Kongo, sunk by USS Sealion off of Formosa, November 21 1944 with loss of 1,250 crew.

Sunk by other:
HMS Queen Elizabeth, sunk by Italian frogmen in Alexandria harbor, Egypt December 18th 1941 with loss of 9 crew. Raised, repaired and returned to duty.

HMS Valiant, sunk by Italian frogmen in Alexandria harbor, Egypt December 18th 1941. Raised, repaired and returned to duty.

German battleship Schlesien, sunk by mine and Soviet bomber attack and then scuttled near Swinemunde in the Baltic, May 5 1945.

INS Mutsu, mysteriously exploded in Oshima bay on June 8, 1943 with the loss of over 1,100 men. No cause has ever been proven although the Japanese blamed sabotage.

Finnish battleship Ilmarinen, sunk in minefield after shelling Estonian coastal islands September 13, 1941 with loss of 271 crew.

Battleships sunk by country:
Imperial Japanese Navy: 10
Royal Navy: 7
Kriegsmarine: 6
United States Navy: 4
Italian Navy: 2
Norwegian Navy: 2
Greek Navy: 2
French Navy: 1
Finnish Navy: 1
Danish Navy: 1
Royal Dutch Navy: 1
Soviet Navy: 1

Total number of battleships serving: 96

Sunk by air attack, in port: 11
Sunk by air attack, in open water: 9
Sunk in surface combat: 8
Sunk by submarine: 3
Sunk by combination of surface and air attack: 2
Sunk by other: 5
Total sunk: 38

Battleships sunk as percentage of total battleship force:

Norwegian Navy: 2/2, 100%
Greek Navy: 2/2, 100%
Danish Navy: 1/1, 100%
Royal Dutch Navy: 1/1, 100%
Imperial Japanese Navy: 10/12, 83%
Kriegsmarine: 6/9, 66%
Finnish Navy: 1/2, 50%
Royal Navy: 7/20, 35%
Italian Navy: 2/7, 29%
Soviet Navy: 1/4, 25%
United States Navy: 4/27, 15%
French Navy: 1/10, 10%

Sources:
http://www.forcez-survivors.org.uk/
http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/
http://www.history.navy.mil/
http://www.nps.gov/archive/usar/PHcas.html
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/battleships/russ_dr.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_ships

[taiaha]

HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales were sunk by Japanese aircraft off the coast of Malaya, not Ceylon.

http://www.forcez-survivors.org.uk/

[SineJustitia]

Megaraptor;2577953']I also just realized that I left out some minor navies that had 1 or 2 old battleships (Denmark, Norway, Greece, Netherlands, etc)...it's late and i'll get to those tomorrow.

I'll save you the trouble; the Royal Netherlands Navy, at the start of WWII, had a surface fleet of 5 cruisers, 8 destroyers and several torpedo- and gunboats. There were 2 battlecruisers on the drawingboard, modified versions of the Deutschland-class pocketbattleships, but these were not even laid down when the war broke out.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Nice info.

Just goes to show that the big girls still played a major role. Personally as important as air power no ship can match a BB in power projection. You only have to look at the huge resources used in sinking Bismark, Tirpitz and Scharnhorst.

3 Ships.

Carriers have awesome offensive capabilities but they can't from a strategic perspective match a battleship.

[Fiber]

Just some trivia. My father has a piece of Tirpitz in his living room. It is a part of his fireplace :)

[Meatwad]

The closest thing we have to battleships today is what the Kirov Battlecruiser?

[Mablod]

Just some trivia. My father has a piece of Tirpitz in his living room. It is a part of his fireplace :)

My father have a Tirpitz museump-)

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales were sunk by Japanese aircraft off the coast of Malaya, not Ceylon.

http://www.forcez-survivors.org.uk/

Thanks. Fixed.

Here are the other battleships:

Danish Navy
1 Niels Juel class - http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/ reports that this battleship was sunk in Eckenforde by air bombing on May 3, 1945 but I can't find any more info.

Greek Navy
2 Battleships, the Kilkis (formerly USS Mississippi, BB-23) and the Limnos (formerly USS Idaho, BB-24), both Mississippi class battleships. Both were sunk by Ju-87 dive bombers in the Salamis Channel on April 23, 1941.

The Dutch Navy
Operated some coastal defense battleships such as HNLMS De Zeven Provincien.

HNLMS De Zeven Provincien was sunk by Japanese bombers off of Surabaya, February 18, 1942. Raised by the Japanese and used as a floating battery, then sunk by allied bombers in 1943.

Norwegian Navy
2 Eidsvold class

HNoMSA Eidsvold, sunk by German destroyers in Narvik harbor, April 9, 1940 with loss of 175 crew.

HNoMSA Norge, sunk by German destroyers in Narvik harbor, April 9 1940, with loss of 101 crew.

Finnish Navy
2 Vainamoinen class

Ilmarinen, sunk in minefield after shelling Estonian coastal islands September 13, 1941 with loss of 271 crew.

Notes and observations:

My list did not include battleships that were no longer being used as such by the outbreak of the war, such as the USS Utah, nor did it count battleships scuttled or grounded by their crews such as the USS Nevada or the Graf Spee as "sunk."

Almost every battleship that saw combat received some form of battle damage.

Only a few battleships were sunk by submarines. Most battleships could survive a few torpedo hits by sealing off the damaged compartments. Look at the torpedoing of the USS North Carolina or the Richelieu for instance.

Sinkings while in port were the most common, accounting for 16 losses. This was also the most likely way to survive a battleship sinking (with some obvious exceptions like the Arizona).

The most deadly sinkings were the Bismarck and Yamato, both of which were operating without friendly warship or air support, and capsized.

This data really shows to me how obsolete battleships had become. Sure, there were still plenty of surface fights, but more than one third (38% in fact) of all battleships serving in World War 2 were sunk. Of those sunk, 57% were sunk by air attack.

Amongst navies that saw major combat, the US Navy suffered far fewer losses of battleships as a percentage of their force. This is at least partly due to the tactics they used of not letting battleships operate alone, without air cover (unlike the British with Force Z or the Germans in Operation Rheinubung). In fact, after Pearl Harbor the US Navy did not lose a single battleship in combat.

[Mablod]

Thanks for the info.

Interresting story behind the sinking of the of the norwegian Eidsvold and Norge. The commander of the german destroyers went onboard if i recall correctly Norge and spoke to the commander there. He said that if they did not surrender they would be sunk, but the norwegians refused.
The german commander then returned to his destroyer, and moments later several torpedoes were fired agains the norwegian ships and they were destroyed.

Some times it's best to just swallow your pride and give in. The norwegians knew that they would't stand a chance with their obsolete ships against the superior destroyer force, but they still refused to surrender. And almost 200 men died.

[SineJustitia]

Ehm... WDW, no offence to all the MP-members with minor navies in WW2, but I don't think the warships you mentioned in your second post, can really be counted as battleships (except for the Greek). Most cruisers of the USN, RN or KM were bigger and more powerful, so then they should be taken into account in your first post as well...

Nevertheless: interesting posts.

[Hecatonchiros]

I don´t know how flexible the term "Battleship" is, but I would not call the two finnish Ilmarinen- class ships battleships, myself. They were called "Panssarilaiva" ("armored ships") by the finns, and I believe the the english term would be "coastal defence ship".

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

Ehm... WDW, no offence to all the MP-members with minor navies in WW2, but I don't think the warships you mentioned in your second post, can really be counted as battleships (except for the Greek). Most cruisers of the USN, RN or KM were bigger and more powerful, so then they should be taken into account in your first post as well...

Nevertheless: interesting posts.

I debated whether or not to include them, but if I excluded them I might have to exclude other old, slow battleships such as the Schleswig-Holstein so I decided to include them. Sometimes they are labeled "coastal defense battleships", other times simply "coastal defense ships."

[SineJustitia]

What really is a battleship?

- Big, at least somewhere near 600 ft
- Heavily armoured, displacing at least 25,000 tonnes
- Multiple turrets with big guns; at least 10"
(rough estimates)

And to make things worse: originally, the Battleship was just a prototype for the ultimate warship of the early 20th century, the Battlecruiser (same as above, but faster and generally with a slimmer hull). Unfortunately, politicians liked the squat, bulkier (and cheaper) Battleship so much, that the Battlecruiser became a sub-species of Battleship. Bet you didn't see that one coming, oi, Jacky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship#The_Dreadnought_era)? p-)

Well, I have time off anyway here (being on a peacekeeping mission is great when it's actually peace ;)) so why not scuttle the original posting a bit further:

RN: HMS Vanguard was commissioned in 1946, so you can scrap her from your WW2 list

KM:
- The three Deutschland-ships (Graf Spee, Scheer & Lutzow) are really too light to be considered a battleship (12.000 - 16.000 tonnes); even Ze Dzjermans themselves considered them Heavy Cruisers once they got real Battleships.
- Same goes for the earlier Deutschland class ships; they were outdated by the time WW1 broke out.

As for the smaller navies, except for the American battleships operated by the Greeks: none of the described ships are anywhere near a proper size, adequatly armoured or sufficiently armed battleship. I for one wouldn't like to fight the 772 ft, 38,000 tonnes Scharnhorst with a less than 300 ft, just over 4,000 tonnes Eidsvold... :roll:

Minor navies may have called their light cruisers battleships, but What's In A Name? Likewise the Coastal Batlleship: it doesn't have the prefix Coastal for nothing; littoral ships are by default smaller because of the shallow waters...

Notwithstanding the appraise for this interesting thread; the fate of small vessels is no less tragic or heroic than their bigger sisters'.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

And to make things worse: originally, the Battleship was just a prototype for the ultimate warship of the early 20th century, the Battlecruiser (same as above, but faster and generally with a slimmer hull). Unfortunately, politicians liked the squat, bulkier (and cheaper) Battleship so much, that the Battlecruiser became a sub-species of Battleship. Bet you didn't see that one coming, oi, Jacky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship#The_Dreadnought_era)? p-)

I counted battlecruisers as battleships for the purpose of this post. Hence the Hood, Alaska, etc are up there. Also, you have to remember the "Fast Battleships" of the US Navy (North Carolina class, Iowa class, South Dakota class) that had the speed of a battlecruiser but the size, armor and armament of a battleship.


RN: HMS Vanguard was commissioned in 1946, so you can scrap her from your WW2 list

My bad, I read the date launched instead of date commissioned.


KM:
- The three Deutschland-ships (Graf Spee, Scheer & Lutzow) are really too light to be considered a battleship (12.000 - 16.000 tonnes); even Ze Dzjermans themselves considered them Heavy Cruisers once they got real Battleships.

But they were over 600 feet long and had 11" guns so they hit 2 of 3 on your chart...


- Same goes for the earlier Deutschland class ships; they were outdated by the time WW1 broke out.

Most battleships at the start of WW2 were outdated to some degree or another, including the USS Arizona, most of the battleships at Pearl Harbor, the Royal Oak...

Anyways, it seems I missed some Soviet Navy vessels...

3 Gangut class (including Sevastopol)

Marat, sunk by German Ju-87 dive bombers in Kronsdadt, used as a stationary artillery battery.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I think many people have the misconception that the battleship was obsolete. I beg to differ.

As stated before. The amount of resources a single modern state of the art battleship could tie up more then made up for any shortfall against air attack.

Whilst Germany still had the Tirpitz and Scharnhost in service even if they were pretty much confined to the Norwegian Fjords the Royal Navy could not afford to reduce it's fleet in significant amounts to counter the Japanese when the US Navy was at it's knees.

As a strategic asset a battleship has never been matched. Even in combat a modern battleship could simply take and take and take massive damage yet still be a formidable fighting force. The sinking of Bismark, Scharnhorst, Yamato and Musashi. Huge resources were spent in defeating these 4 ships.

I would argue that if modern Anti-Aircraft technology had of been available much sooner then Battleships may still be with us.

[z0rr0101]

I think many people have the misconception that the battleship was obsolete. I beg to differ.

It is not misconception but proven fact that was demonstrated time and time again during WWII. Battleship without proper air cover was sitting duck for any aircraft carrier.



As stated before. The amount of resources a single modern state of the art battleship could tie up more then made up for any shortfall against air attack.


I think you have to consider the resource that went into building one of these ships and hiding it from enemy. By second world war a seizable chunk o GDP was required to build these ships. Take for example the King George V class. I think I read somewhere that building these ships cost GB 5 percent of its GDP during construction period. Can you imagine spending that kind of money today. You can also ask your self why Germany didn't build more of them. Because they didn't have resources to support war machine and build battleships. They opted for cheaper solution, submarines which proved to be much more affective then fleet of battleships they possessed.



Whilst Germany still had the Tirpitz and Scharnhost in service even if they were pretty much confined to the Norwegian Fjords the Royal Navy could not afford to reduce it's fleet in significant amounts to counter the Japanese when the US Navy was at it's knees.


By the time only Tripitz and Scharnhost where left, US navy was on offensive and Japanese fleet in retreat. US Navy was never at it's knees. It's battleship fleet was. It's carriers where live and kicking and they proved that just few months later when they sunk first Japanese carrier. And only 7 months after Perl harbor they destroyed cream of Japanese carrier fleet at battle of Midway and turned tied of war in Pacific. From that moment on Japanese fleet was in retreat and not beacuse of lack of battleships but but beacuse of lack of aircraft carriers.

Also by that time large part of royal fleet was operating in other theaters like Mediterranean sea, fare east or just escorting convoys.



As a strategic asset a battleship has never been matched. Even in combat a modern battleship could simply take and take and take massive damage yet still be a formidable fighting force. The sinking of Bismark, Scharnhorst, Yamato and Musashi. Huge resources were spent in defeating these 4 ships.

Again I would disagree. Battleship was quite clearly trumped by aricraft carrier in WWII and it took over roll of of strategic asset that keeps even today.

Much smaller resources where spent in sinking most of them then in building them. Aircraft carriers where cheaper and loss of airplane while paynfull in loss of life is insignificant in comparison to material and human losses suffered in sinking single battleship.



I would argue that if modern Anti-Aircraft technology had of been available much sooner then Battleships may still be with us.
Do you mean WWII battleship with aegis combat system and SM II missiles? Noppp losing propossion.

[z0rr0101]

Great thread Megaraptor, I can spend hours debating Battleships...

Some comments:


What really is a battleship?

- Big, at least somewhere near 600 ft
- Heavily armoured, displacing at least 25,000 tonnes
- Multiple turrets with big guns; at least 10"
(rough estimates)


Agree, Good estimates, but I also purpose at least 12'' guns beacuse both Germany and US had large cruisers (pocket battleships) with 11'' and 12 '' guns. We have to remember that most of so called battleships that served in WWII where build before, during and just after WWI. So




And to make things worse: originally, the Battleship was just a prototype for the ultimate warship of the early 20th century, the Battlecruiser (same as above, but faster and generally with a slimmer hull). Unfortunately, politicians liked the squat, bulkier (and cheaper) Battleship so much, that the Battlecruiser became a sub-species of Battleship. Bet you didn't see that one coming, oi, Jacky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship#The_Dreadnought_era)? p-)


Battlecruisers where invented before WWI. They where distinct class of ship that where faster, more agile then WWI battleships, had same armament as battleships but much thinner armor. Concept was great on paper but it failed the moment it came in range of battleship guns. Because of thin armor they where easy pray for more heavily protected battleships. The most tragic example is a Hood. Hood started its life as a Battlecruiser and later was modernized and upgraded with thicker armor and reclassified as Battleship. Unfortunately armor wasn't thick enough which doomed Hood when it meet Bismark.

Most ship that started as Battlecruisers where upgraded with thicker armor and reclassified as battleships between the great wars.



KM:
- The three Deutschland-ships (Graf Spee, Scheer & Lutzow) are really too light to be considered a battleship (12.000 - 16.000 tonnes); even Ze Dzjermans themselves considered them Heavy Cruisers once they got real Battleships.
- Same goes for the earlier Deutschland class ships; they were outdated by the time WW1 broke out.


Also known as Pocket battleships, armored ships or large heavy cruisers. Deutschland class where probably most modern heavy cruiser in the world at the outbrake of WWII. They where some of the first ships to be equipped with the radar. For intended roll as a raiders they where perfect. Nothing smaller then battleship could fight them and there where precious few fast battleships at that time that could catch up with them.


Megaraptor;2581341'] I counted battlecruisers as battleships for the purpose of this post. Hence the Hood, Alaska, etc are up there. Also, you have to remember the "Fast Battleships" of the US Navy (North Carolina class, Iowa class, South Dakota class) that had the speed of a battlecruiser but the size, armor and armament of a battleship.


Alaska class should be classified as very large cruiser. While very large and quite heavily armed, it has much weaker armor then even battlecruiser. Preciesly as Deutschland class it should be classified as large heavy cruiser intended for raiding and not for slagging match of ships of the line.

Norwegian and Finnish where classified as (bad translation) coastal defense ships.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

Alaska class should be classified as very large cruiser. While very large and quite heavily armed, it has much weaker armor then even battlecruiser. Preciesly as Deutschland class it should be classified as large heavy cruiser intended for raiding and not for slagging match of ships of the line.

The US Navy classified them as battlecruisers (designation CB) and named them after overseas territories, as opposed to cruisers which were designated CA and named after cities.

Every book about American battleships that I have read lists the Alaskas as battlecruisers. They had far bigger guns (12 inch) than even the largest American cruisers (which only had 8 inch guns) and displaced far more (27,000 tons for an Alaska, 17,000 tons for a Des Moines class heavy cruiser).

[z0rr0101]

Megaraptor;2582312']The US Navy classified them as battlecruisers (designation CB) and named them after overseas territories, as opposed to cruisers which were designated CA and named after cities.

Every book about American battleships that I have read lists the Alaskas as battlecruisers. They had far bigger guns (12 inch) than even the largest American cruisers (which only had 8 inch guns) and displaced far more (27,000 tons for an Alaska, 17,000 tons for a Des Moines class heavy cruiser).

Please correct me if I a wrong but US Navy called there battlecruisers CC and not CB.

I do concede that it could be classified as battlecruisers in first world war but I am not so sure about second world war. This cruiser was of modern design and I believe that its naming convention also reflects that. It wasn't designated as CC but CB.

If you compare it to Lexington class it half as big and with much weaker armament.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

Please correct me if I a wrong but US Navy called there battlecruisers CC and not CB.

That was correct but the designation CC was never used for a commissioned warship.

According to Haze Gray, C was for cruiser and B was for battleship, so CB = ;) although they were officially known as "large cruisers." Like I said, most naval authors classify them as battlecruisers. Let's compare the Alaskas with a Des Moines class heavy cruiser (largest built by USN, entered service in 1948).

Alaska: 9x12" main guns (Des Moines: 9x8")
Alaska: 229mm armor (Des Moines: 76mm horiz, 203mm vertical, 152mm turret)
Alaska: 27,000 tons displacement (Des Moines: 17,000 tons)
Alaska: 808 feet long (that's 70 feet longer than a North Carolina class battleship) (Des Moines: 716'6")

[z0rr0101]

Megaraptor;2582529']That was correct but the designation CC was never used for a commissioned warship.

According to Haze Gray, C was for cruiser and B was for battleship, so CB = ;) although they were officially known as "large cruisers." Like I said, most naval authors classify them as battlecruisers. Let's compare the Alaskas with a Des Moines class heavy cruiser (largest built by USN, entered service in 1948).

Alaska: 9x12" main guns (Des Moines: 9x8")
Alaska: 229mm armor (Des Moines: 76mm horiz, 203mm vertical, 152mm turret)
Alaska: 27,000 tons displacement (Des Moines: 17,000 tons)
Alaska: 808 feet long (that's 70 feet longer than a North Carolina class battleship) (Des Moines: 716'6")

Cool, have a solution to this dilemma large cruiser = battlecruiser :)

I guess it is a battle cruiser but very poor one.

If we are to go back to origins of battle cruisers, before days of fast battleships, and look at their intended roll you can see that they where envisioned as fast "battleships" with battleship armament but much weaker armor. Typical battleship in WW II had at lest 14'' gun. While North Carolina was smaller and not much heavier it had much heavier armor and 15'' or 16'' guns.

But like everything else evolves, battlecruiser also evolved. They become smaller beacuse concept as envisioned before WWI was proven flawed and they become what they should have been from beginning. Large cruiser/battle cruisers used to chase other cruisers and merchants and not battleships.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

If we are to go back to origins of battle cruisers, before days of fast battleships, and look at their intended roll you can see that they where envisioned as fast "battleships" with battleship armament but much weaker armor.

True. And by WW2 they figured out how to put big guns, heavy armor and fast speeds all in one package (North Carolina and South Dakota class). Hence, battlecruisers became obsolete in the traditional sense (part of why only 2 Alaskas were ever completed).

[SineJustitia]

Cool, have a solution to this dilemma large cruiser = battlecruiser :)

Haha, I think that about sums it up: there are no fixed criteria, so in these gray area's you can call ships either above or below their worth...

It mostly is a matter of opinion; I think the most sensible thing to do is to adhere to how the navies themselves designated their ships (sorry Deutschland class p-)), and be awere of translation-problems. Oh, and can we exclude all 17th century sailing battleships?

I think the word here is Dreadnought (why didn't anybody coin that phrase before...?!). Spead, punch and armour. If it lacks that, it's a pre-dreadnought "battleship", which were outclassed by their successors and really should be left out of this thread.

And to point out one thing: all battlecruisers are battleships, but not all battleships are battlecruisers. A battlecruiser is a battleship (in its size, armour and armament) with increased endurance and speed. If it lacks the armour of a battleship, it's not a battlecruiser, its a heavy cruiser.

All of the above is completely arbitrary, debatable and un-supported by any form of official document. Like the entire discussion "is it a battleship or not"? :).

Happy debating!

PS: Battleships became an endangered species the moment the torpedo was invented. The resources it takes to build a battleship that can be taken out by one torpedo...! And yes, the torpedo was invented before the dreadnought...:cantbeli:

[z0rr0101]

Haha, I think that about sums it up: there are no fixed criteria, so in these gray area's you can call ships either above or below their worth...


I second that...



It mostly is a matter of opinion; I think the most sensible thing to do is to adhere to how the navies themselves designated their ships (sorry Deutschland class p-)), and be awere of translation-problems. Oh, and can we exclude all 17th century sailing battleships?

For the most navies that would be fine, beacuse the navies that where engaged in battleship race would reclassifies weaker and outdated designs them selfs. But then you had some small navies with grand dreams who might call a ship, the battleship. But it ain't, just beacuse it floats and has a gun. By WWII they couldn't fight of a destroyer and definitely not another BB.



And to point out one thing: all battlecruisers are battleships, but not all battleships are battlecruisers. A battlecruiser is a battleship (in its size, armour and armament) with increased endurance and speed. If it lacks the armour of a battleship, it's not a battlecruiser, its a heavy cruiser.

Hmm... I think we have to define what battlecruiser is.
I disagree as would most naval authors. Battleship most definitively is not battlecruiser. It is very much a gray area but if you check books like, Roberts, John "Battlecruisers" or goggle you will find that following is accepted definition of battlecruiser.
Battlecruiser evolved from cruisers and in terms of ship classification they occupy a gray area between cruisers and battleship. They can be divided in two groups:
1. They look like battleship, but they are not beacuse of lack of armament or firepower. They traded these for higher speed, and that meant more powerfull engines and and slender hull. Still they where considered a capital sips that could scout in force for main battle fleet and escape real battleships beacuse of there speed. Unfortunately if hit by big boys, they tended to meet very violent death.

2. Smaller vessels which where basically very large heavy cruisers, also called pocket battleships and are often considered by some to be battlecruisers as well. Deutschland being most famous example of this group.

Because there is such a large gap between cruisers and battleships, battlecruisers technical specifications and capability varied. But they shared a similar role. They where designed to hunt down smaller warships or merchants but avoid battleships. Original concept was conceived by British before WWI who designed a ships with battleship guns but cruiser speed. To achieve higher speed they traded armor for more powerful engines. Germans traded bigger guns instead of armor. But both designs performed same roll. After WWI there where several new designs most notably of second type, large cruisers, like Alaska and Deutschland. Refer to discussion above for more info.

By WWII big battlecruisers where overrun by advances in battleship technology that allowed for "fast battleships" that combined speed of battlecruisers and battleships.

No battleships has ever been referred to as battlecruisers beacuse that would be fundamentally wrong. In some rear occasion very large battlecruisers like Lexington and Hood might be considered by some as a battleships. But there own navies classified them as battlecruisers.



All of the above is completely arbitrary, debatable and un-supported by any form of official document. Like the entire discussion "is it a battleship or not"? :).

They are tones of documents about this subject that support any number of opinions. Battleships are good, we are debating little brother p-)



Happy debating!


I love good debate woot



PS: Battleships became an endangered species the moment the torpedo was invented. The resources it takes to build a battleship that can be taken out by one torpedo...! And yes, the torpedo was invented before the dreadnought...:cantbeli:

No, no, you will not beat me there... I say they become endangered species the moment first submarine was invented. And they where invented before torpedo :)

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

But then you had some small navies with grand dreams who might call a ship, the battleship. But it ain't, just beacuse it floats and has a gun. By WWII they couldn't fight of a destroyer and definitely not another BB.

Just because a battleship is obsolete doesn't mean it's not a battleship, it just means it's an obsolete battleship.

Like I said, HMS Royal Oak and USS Arizona were obsolete by the start of WW2 as well, does that mean they were not "real battleships"?


No, no, you will not beat me there... I say they become endangered species the moment first submarine was invented. And they where invented before torpedo :)

And I disagree with both of you. Look at the stats. Very few battleships were sunk by submarine, while over half that were sunk were sunk by air attack.

Submarines and torpedoes existed in WW1, but battleships still ruled the seas.

Battleships became secondary when Billy Mitchell's planes sank the Ostfriesland. They didn't become obsolete per se, but they no longer formed the backbone of the Navy.

[z0rr0101]

Megaraptor;2584007']Just because a battleship is obsolete doesn't mean it's not a battleship, it just means it's an obsolete battleship.

Like I said, HMS Royal Oak and USS Arizona were obsolete by the start of WW2 as well, does that mean they were not "real battleships"?


What I meant with this post, you can't call everything that floats battleship. For example Norwegian Eidsvold most definitively is not a battleship, not even close.

As for keeping designation of battleships for the obsolete battleships that might be weaker then modern cruiser, it is up to the navy that seals it. If they call it battleship it is a battleship... No argument about that...



Megaraptor;2584007']
And I disagree with both of you. Look at the stats. Very few battleships were sunk by submarine, while over half that were sunk were sunk by air attack.

Submarines and torpedoes existed in WW1, but battleships still ruled the seas.

hmmmm, didn't you notice a hefty dose of sarcasm in my post p-)


Megaraptor;2584007']
Battleships became secondary when Billy Mitchell's planes sank the Ostfriesland. They didn't become obsolete per se, but they no longer formed the backbone of the Navy.

Not true! Mitchell's was a visionary but unfortunately he was ridiculed for his ideas and those test conducted in 1919-1921 where dismissed us inconclusive. He was only proven correct after Taranto and Pearl Harbor. Until Pearl Harbor battleship still formed backbone of all of the mayor world navies except Japanese that had balanced fleet. Still even in Japan battleship was considered ultimate weapon.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

What I meant with this post, you can't call everything that floats battleship. For example Norwegian Eidsvold most definitively is not a battleship, not even close.

As for keeping designation of battleships for the obsolete battleships that might be weaker then modern cruiser, it is up to the navy that seals it. If they call it battleship it is a battleship... No argument about that...

You just contradicted yourself...


Not true! Mitchell's was a visionary but unfortunately he was ridiculed for his ideas and those test conducted in 1919-1921 where dismissed us inconclusive. He was only proven correct after Taranto and Pearl Harbor. Until Pearl Harbor battleship still formed backbone of all of the mayor world navies except Japanese that had balanced fleet. Still even in Japan battleship was considered ultimate weapon.

OK, let me amend that.

"Battleships became secondary once Billy Mitchell was proven right in 1940-41, even though Billy Mitchell's planes sank the Ostfriesland 20 years earlier..."

[SineJustitia]

Megaraptor;2584007']

And I disagree with both of you. Look at the stats. Very few battleships were sunk by submarine, while over half that were sunk were sunk by air attack.

Submarines and torpedoes existed in WW1, but battleships still ruled the seas.



Wow, don't drag Zorro's Sarcastic Submarines into MY argument p-). (by the way Zorro: thanks; you scuttled my argument by enhancing it :))

I never said anything about torpedoes making battleships obsolete (let alone submarines); I said torpedoes endangered battleships. I mean by this that even a small destroyer, with her torpedoes, could seriously endanger a battleship in a way no cruiser could with her puny 8" guns. Remember Jutland, and why poor old Jellicoe was sacked as Commander of the Home Fleet for "cowardice"...? :-( (well, actually I don't. But I've heard stories about it ;))

[z0rr0101]

Megaraptor;2584368']You just contradicted yourself...


Yes I did. In the haste to answer I not only contradicted my self but wrote something that goes against accepted norms of ship classification and my own knowledge. So let me amend my post and state that if ship is classified as a Battleship then it is a Battleship regardless if it is old or new.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

So let me amend my post and state that if ship is classified as a Battleship then it is a Battleship regardless if it is old or new.

I can agree with that statement.

[z0rr0101]

Wow, don't drag Zorro's Sarcastic Submarines into MY argument p-). (by the way Zorro: thanks; you scuttled my argument by enhancing it :))


You welcome. Pleasure is mine...



Remember Jutland, and why poor old Jellicoe was sacked as Commander of the Home Fleet for "cowardice"...? :-( (well, actually I don't. But I've heard stories about it ;))
This is my next project. We are organizing expedition to the shipwrecks of battle of Jutland. It should be even more fun then HMS Repulse and Prince of Wales.

[SineJustitia]

This is my next project. We are organizing expedition to the shipwrecks of battle of Jutland. It should be even more fun then HMS Repulse and Prince of Wales.

Well, as long as one doesn't steal the propellors (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/vo001101/halltext/01101h03.htm), I think such expeditions are a good thing. Be sure to post the pics! (probably a blur of sandy water, but you never know)

[z0rr0101]

Well, as long as one doesn't steal the propellors (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/vo001101/halltext/01101h03.htm), I think such expeditions are a good thing. Be sure to post the pics! (probably a blur of sandy water, but you never know)

You never know in these waters, but we expect at least 10-15 m visibility.
Little teaser video from Repulse: Link (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5317527525066534079&q=recntec.com&total=12&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5)

[ihgl]

You welcome. Pleasure is mine...


This is my next project. We are organizing expedition to the shipwrecks of battle of Jutland. It should be even more fun then HMS Repulse and Prince of Wales.

There is TV-Film about Jutland that is very interesting. "Battle Of Jutland - Clash Of The Dreadnoughts". Their theory seems to be that bad handling with cordite rather than thin armor sunk the battlecruisers.

[welshmann]

You never know in these waters, but we expect at least 10-15 m visibility.
Little teaser video from Repulse: Link (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5317527525066534079&q=recntec.com&total=12&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5)

great thread ,im going to ask a stupid question,i know nothing about diving but watching that vid=does the term frogmen come from the way divers move legs and flippers? just like this guy in this vid.

[z0rr0101]

great thread ,im going to ask a stupid question,i know nothing about diving but watching that vid=does the term frogmen come from the way divers move legs and flippers? just like this guy in this vid.

While movement you see in the video is known as a frog kick, i don't believe that in it self gave a name to frogmen. Most common kick is so called flutter kick. Frog kick is used when diving in overhead environments, i.e. wrecks, caves, to avoid stirring up a bottom sediment. I am just speculating but I believe that in the beginning fins used by divers where usually shorter then modern fins and made of soft rubber or rubbery materials. They look very much like frog feats.

z

[Eoin666]

Very interesting thread guys.

Was thinking that it's a shame the new UK carriers will be Oueen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales, and not one reserved for the name Warspite "Warspite carries the most battle honours for any individual ship in the Royal Navy, and the most awarded for actions in the Second World War"....a pity she wasn't berthed in London as a floating meseum instead of the Belfast

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Warspite_(1913)

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Well the UK was that ****ed economically that it was not as if they were in a position to spend money on museums.

Sad state of affairs really that the greatest navy the world has ever seen has no proper and true memorials for such vessels.