Jump to content

chickenpie65

Players
  • Content Сount

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    2590

About chickenpie65

  • Rank
    Able Seaman
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. chickenpie65

    What is the best battleship of WW2?

    Bismarck's firecontrol was disabled by destroying her main gun directors on top the superstructure (which would literally do the same result to any other ship if hit there) Her main gun directros and rangefinders (incl. radar) was the first thing that was hit when Ridney's shells landed on her superstructure. Literally no ship in the world had a strong enough belt armor that would be able to resist 15" or even 16" caliber shells at 10 km range. This is common sense! No ship's belt armor was immune at that close range. It's really funny how you seem to be so amazed and hyped about such a simple fact. But the amount of punishment Bismarck took was astounishing. She was hit by over 500 shells from 4 ships at the same time and her magazines didn't blow up. Please show us the reference where I supposedly denied this fact. At no point have I ever denied that Scharnhorst was crippled by KGV's round penetrating the engine room. I didn't even compare the 11" to a 15" shell. I only compared the difference between a 14" to a 15" shell. In fact, I even agreed with your argument, reducing Scharnhors'ts firepower rating form 3/5 down to 1/5.
  2. chickenpie65

    What is the best battleship of WW2?

    You are talking about caisson tests from 1939, which led to several improvements of the hull. These improvements have already been carried out on the Iowa before it went into service. They welded joints between the lower armor belt and the triple bottom was reinforced with buttstaps. Iowas' system was improved over the South Dakotas'. The Iowa itself has never been hit by a real torpedo, so it's difficult to estimate accurate assessment. I still think it could take a few torpedo, as long as it didn't hit the forward part of Turret A. Of course North Carolina had a better system, because she used a large anti-torpedo bulge, wich gave much more volume and better protection. Such a bulge was missing in the South Dakota and Iowa class. I agree with you that the Iowa's anti-torpedo system was not as good as other capital ships, that's why I already decreased it to 3/5, which is acceptable enough. But overall it won't change the ranking in total, Iowa is still one of the best battleship, even if her anti-torpedo system isn't the best. What she lacks in TDS, she more than makes up for with overwhelming Anti-air defence. Where does it say "gun ranking"? The Firepower ranking is made of several factors as stated in my first post, such as: Rate of fire, penetration, caliber and fire control. Of course a better fire control obviously increases the total firepower, because what are big guns good for if you can't hit your enemy before he hits you? A battleship fight is won by the ship that scores the first critical hit (like disabling the fire control director). So yes, ships with a better FC do of course get a much better firepower rting than ships with a worse FC! It's really just common sense! All historical battleship engagements have proven that. I'm not favoring the ships, I'm actually making realistic representation of the ship's overal firepower capability which you don't seem to understand due to your lack of historical knowledge. A radar that has a proven capability to make the first hit with the first salvo, definitely deserves 5/5. So it doesn't matter if the guns can hit or not? You are ridiculous. What is the point of having bigger guns if it can't hit anything? You have absolutely no clue about historical naval battles at all. The few battleship engagements that have occured, have proven that hitting your enemy first is the most important factor that decides about winning or losing the fight! Not bigger guns win. Better fire control wins. And that's why it has of course a huge influence on the fierepower rating! Exactly! Bingo! We're talking about BATTLESHPS, with HUGE guns, not tank battles. The most important fact in battleship engagement is to disable the enemy's fire control first, because taking away his fire cotnrol director leaves him blind and defenceless. Without coordinated fire control the big guns of a ship are useless. All your talking about armor and bursting charges becomes completely irrelevant if the fire control is lost. Stop using a strawman on me dude, I'm not even talking about destroyers. Besides, the most effective weapons against destroyers are not the main guns but the secondaries, which in realit had a range over 10km not like in WoWsh which you probably base most of your arguments and knowledge on. No need to be an arrogant A-hole. Keep it calm dude. No one likes arrogant A-holes. We can all learn from each other and share our wisdom without bevaing like D-heads ok. Again, the biggest and most important difference that really mattters is the fire control. Everything else comes second. Nelson's guns can cripple any ship just as easilly as any American, French or German guns. Nelson crippled the Bismarck within a few minutes, first knocking out her fire control directors and turrets, leaving Bismarck blind and defenceless. It doesn't have to instant-one-shot-magazin-kill a target, the most important fact is to disable the enemy's fire control first, which secures the victory. Again, the maximum effective gun range is about 20-30 km, anything above that range is a waste of shells. And all battleship guns could theoretically land a shot at that range, but not all ships could effectively make the first HIT on a target at that reange, because it depends mostly on the fire control quality! The American late-war battleships with the Mk.8 radar could easilly make the first hit on a large target at 20-30 km, but the Yamato or Bismarck would struggle to get a first hit on the Iowa at that same range. It wasn't as good as the American radars, but still not bad, It did help to find the range on target. When Yamato opened fire on the USS White Plains at 31 km, it almost straddled the carrier, severely damaging White Plains with a near miss from her third salvo. Followed by more hits on USS Johnston by Yamato's secondary 155 mm guns at 20,313 yards (19 km). Then Yamato turned her secondary battery on USS Hoel at a range of 10,096 yards (9 km), crippling the destroyer. Apparently, you don't even seem to understand the main principle purpose of a fire control. Anything that helps getting the range to the target is of great use. it was good enough to help Yamato achieving the hits on the American destroyers. Any kind of radar was still better than no radar at all. 500 m is enough to get a good straddle on the target area. Even if it's not very accurate, it's still much beter than having to estimate the range to the target manually. If you don't understand this simple concept then I'm really sorry. We will never really know how good it was because it has never been used on the Italian battleship in action against an enemy so we can only guess. But it's still better than having no radar at all. Of coruse it didn't have a 360° degree search scan coverage, since it didn't fully rotate. But it did provide radar coverage in the direction it was pointed to. Like a searchlight illuminating an area. In any case, it was still better than no radar at all, so it was a great help for gunnery purpose. And I already decreased Littorio's FC to 3/5 which is acceptable now. This is literally the most irrelevant aspect in rating the power of a battleship ever. ALL capital ships had enough range for a long-prolonged mission on the ocean. But not all countries had enough fuel. That was the real problem. Japan, Italy and Germany had very low fuel shortage, which is why they had to be very careful with deploying their big battleships. While the US and British didn't care about fuel lolololol But then again that has nothign to do with the battleship itself. More like the parameters of war ecomomy. I am very well aware that different guns had different dispersion. No need to be an arrogant d-ck head. As a general rule of thumb, turrets where the guns are very close together had a worse dispersion because the muzzle blast from adjacent guns affected each gun (for example: New Mexico, Tennessee, Pennslyvania etc). But we don't know the exact dispersion pattern of all the gun typers, do you? But the difference is not really that deciding in a battle anyway. You can not make the dispersion go away, because it will always be there, it's just the nature of the sells falling at long distance. But you can influence the accuracy with a better fre control radar, so that the shells will at least fall in the desired target area where you expect the enemy ship to be when the shells arive on the area, so at least a few shells will hit the target. Yes some guns have better or worse dispersion, for example the Bismarck had better dispersion than the british guns. Apparently it didn't help much when she was destroyed by Rodney which had better fire control.... you get the point. The fact that you are valuing irrelevant things like dispersion more important than the really important things (FC), really shows that you don't know anything about historical naval battles. So now you are talking about the proteciton of the engine room? Fine, that's part of the citadel protection, which is already included in the rating list The rudder itself didn't have any armor. Regardless of armor system used, many critical areas such as the rudder and propellers could not be protected so damage to these areas are dangerous to all ships. All ratings are based on historical facts. History has proven that the first battleship to make the first hits usually won the battle. That's why the most important factor is fire control. This is the most deciding factor about the outcome of winning or losing a battle. Histroy proved this. And that's what the ranking is based.
  3. chickenpie65

    What is the best battleship of WW2?

    Iowa's anti-torpedo protection was good for the most part of the hull, just not the forward section where it's very narrow, I can see that. Though she never had to prove it because she shot down all the torpedo bombers that even dared to approach her (biggest mistake a japanese pilot could do lol) But I agree with you that her anti-torpedo rating should be 3/5 instead. I will fix that As I clearly stated in the first post: "the firepower rating is influenced by the fire control rating as well", because better accuracy and better hit probability obviously increases the overal firepower potential, doesn't it? The fact she could hit a target with her first salvo at ranges of 20-30 km even at night, definitely deserves her a 5/5 rating. If that capability doesn't give her a 5/5, then nothing else deserves it. Realistically, it doesn't even make a big difference if Iowa's guns hit a ship or West Virginia's guns hit the same target. They will both wreck anything they hit. The fire control matters more. And since both have the same radar equipment, and the same caliber, with the ability to make the first hit on the enemy, givs them both a maximum rating in firepower. The small difference of penetraton is meaningless in this case. All big guns of that caliber make devastating damage! The "maximum range" is completely irrelevant because they wouldn't even be hitting anything at 40 km anyway. Only the maximum effective hitting range is around 30 km. Anything above that is just a waste of shells. Keep in mind that this is just a simplified 5-star point rating system. The difference bewteen a 16" to another 16" is so small, it won't even be visible in the rating. Or do you think a 10% difference in penetration makes it a 4/5 instead of a 5/5? That's just retarded. So yeah, the West Virginia and Tennessee-class from 1944 with Mk.8 radar and first-hit capability definitely deserve a 5/5 rating in firepower. You are confusing the basic EC.3 from 1941 with the more advanced EC.3 ter updated version from 1942, they're both different models . Unfortunately, we will never really know how good Littorio's FC with the radar would have been, because she never engaged enemy ships with the radar installed in 1942.... The only time she engaged British ships was in 1940 but she didn't have the radar installed at that time, which explains her bad performance in 1940... So we can only guess. But I will agree with you that 4/5 is maybe a little bit too high for Littorio, considering she didn't have a great hsitorical performance... I will reduce it to 3/5 Besides, any basic radar can be used for fire control. as it provides the approx. range to the target, which is one key factor you need for hitting the enemy accurately at long range. For example, the German Seetakt radar (used by the Bismarck, Scharnhorst, Prinz Eugen etc) was only a basic "search" radar, but since it provided the range to the target, it was a great help tool to land shots on target quickly. This is why the Yamato is NOT on first palce. I even placed the Yamato lower than the Tennessee and West Virginia, because superior fire control is more important than just bigger guns and thicker armor. The "range of action" mostly depends on how good the fire control is. And the range is already included in the ranking (both in firepower and fire control rating). "Dispersion pattern?" Seriously? What's the point of that? All guns have a dispersion pattern, so what? How am I even supposed to rate that? Do you have a sheet or document of all the different "dispersion patterns" of all the different guns, so we can accurately rate them? No? Well, then it's gonna be difficult to make accurate ratings.... "Machinery output"? I suppose you mean engine power? So basically speed? Again, the speed is not as imprortant as fire control radar. It may have a value, but not battle winning value. "Damage control"? Again, how am I supposed to rate the "damage control" of each ship class? Based on what exactly? OK, we can conclude that Japan had obviusly the worst damage control in general, while US ships had the best damage control. But we are talking about navy doctrines in general, not about specific ships! "Safety measures" ? What does that even mean? What safety measures? In what category? This is too vague. You need to be more specific because it doesn't make any sense. Do you mean safety of handling of ammunition? Such thing doesn't have any meaningful point in this ranking. You're mostly nitpicking on small things that have little meaning in an actual battle. I only rated the most important aspects that really matter and have a big impact on the outcome of the battle, not every little thing that is mostly irrelevant when valuing the power of a battleship!
  4. chickenpie65

    Best cruiser of WW2?

    After the battleship ranking list, now here is the cruiser ranking list. The cruisers will be rated by the most important traits according to real hisotical data (not WoWsh statistics). Keep in mind that this list is not related to World of Warships data, it is actually meant to represent the real ships from WW2. Meaning that there is no hit points or health bar lol :) The most important factors are: Armor: The belt/citadel armor protecting the magazines (the turret armor is not so important as any direct hit would disable the turret and guns anyway) Firepower (main guns): including rate of fire (reload time), rounds per minute for all guns, number of gun turrets, gun range etc. Fire-control effectivity: This is very important aspect that will influence the firepower rating, it determines which ship has the better accuracy and better chance to hit first Anti-air defence: determines how good the anti-aircraft defence is Anti-torpedo protection: determines how good the anti-torpedo protection is Additional weapons (torpedoes): Carrying torpedoes can increase the offensive power, but it can also increase the vulnerability of the own ship, if the torpedoes get hit and explodes on the ship, it can damage or even cripple the own ship We will start with the weak ships and move on to the most powerful ones, including all light and heavy cruisers from 1940-1945. Nagara/Sendai/Tenryu/Kuma-classes light cruiser (1941 version) Armor (citadel): ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Firepower: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Fire-control: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Anti-air: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Anti-torpedo: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Torpedos: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 (very powerful long range torpedos thou) Kirov heavy cruiser The turrets were so cramped that their rate of fire was much lower than designed, only two rounds per minute instead of six. Also the dispersion of the guns was very high because they were so close together that the muzzle blast from adjacent guns affected each gun. Armor (citadel): ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 (very low rate of fire, only 18 RPM) Fire-control: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 (very high dispersion of the guns) Anti-air: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Anti-torpedo: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Torpedo: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 (only short-range torpdos) Duca degli Abruzzi / Condottieri - light cruiser Armor (citadel): ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 (very low ROF; only 24 RPM with all guns) Fire-control: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Anti-air: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Anti-torpedo: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Torpedo: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 5/5 Agano-class light cruiser (1942 version) Armor (citadel): ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 (ROF: 36 RPM) Fire-control: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Anti-air: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Anti-torpedo: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Torpedo: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 Trento / Zara heavy cruiser Armor: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 (low ROF of only 24 RPM) Fire-control: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Anti-air: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Anti-torpedo: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Torpedo: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Aoba-class heavy cruiser (1941 version) Armor (citadel): ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 (low ROF: 12-24 RPM) Fire-control: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Anti-air: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Anti-torpedo: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Torpedo: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 York-class heavy cruiser (1941/42) Armor (citadel): ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 (18-36 RPM) Fire-control: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Anti-air: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Anti-torpedo: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Torpedo: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Algêrie heavy cruiser (1940) Armor (citadel): ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 (ROF: 32-40 RPM) Fire-control: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Anti-air: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Anti-torpedo: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Torpedo: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Suffren heavy cruiser (1940) Armor (citadel): ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 (ROF: 32-40 RPM) Fire-control: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Anti-air: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Anti-torpedo: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Torpedos: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Königsberg light cruiser (1941) Armor (citadel): ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 (high ROF: 50-70 RPM) Fire-control: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Anti-air: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Anti-torpedo: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Torpedos: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Leipzig light cruiser (1941) Armor (citadel): ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 (high ROF: 50-70 RPM) Fire-control: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Anti-air: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Anti-torpedo: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Torpedos: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Dido-class light cruiser (1941/42) Armor (citadel): ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 (very high ROF: 80 RPM) Fire-control: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Anti-air: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 (dual-purpose guns for anti-ship and anti-air) Anti-torpedo: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Torpedos: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 5/5 Arethusa-class light cruiser (1941/42) Armor (citadel): ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 (rate of fire: 48 RPM) Fire-control: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Anti-air: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Anti-torpedo: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Torpedos: ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 0/5 Atlanta light cruiser (1942) Armor (citadel): ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 3/5 (very high ROF: 180-200 RPM) Fire-control: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Anti-air: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 Anti-torpedo: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Torpedos: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Northampton heavy cruiser (1942) Armor (citadel): ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Fire-control: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Anti-air: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Anti-torpedo: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Torpedos: ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 0/5 New Orleans heavy cruiser (1941 refit) Armor (citadel): ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Fire-control: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Anti-air: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Anti-torpedo: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Torpedos: ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 0/5 Wichita heavy cruiser (1939/40) Armor (citadel): ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Fire-control: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Anti-air: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Anti-torpedo: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Torpedos: ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 0/5 Takao-class heavy cruiser (1942 version) Armor (citadel): ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Fire-control: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Anti-air: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Anti-torpedo: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Torpedos: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 Myoko-class heavy cruiser Armor (citadel): ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Fire-control: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Anti-air: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Anti-torpedo: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Torpedos: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 Mogami-class heavy cruiser Armor (citadel): ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Fire-control: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Anti-air: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Anti-torpedo: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Torpedos: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 Tone-class heavy cruiser Armor (citadel): ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Fire-control: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Anti-air: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Anti-torpedo: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Torpedos: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 Crown Colony class light cruiser (1941/42) Armor (citadel): ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 (very high rate of fire: 72-96 RPM) Fire-control: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 (Upgraded with radars in 1942) Anti-air: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Anti-torpedo: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Torpedos: ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 0/5 Deutschland heavy cruiser (1941) Armor (citadel): ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 (very powerful guns but also very low rate of fire: only 12 RPM.... Well, at least it got a radar) Fire-control: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Anti-air: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Anti-torpedo: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Torpedos: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Portland heavy cruiser (1942 Upgrade) Armor (citadel): ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Fire-control: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 (Upgraded with Mk.3 radar 1942) Anti-air: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Anti-torpedo: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Torpedos: ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 0/5 New Orleans heavy cruiser (1942 Upgrade) Armor (citadel): ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Fire-control: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 (Upgraded with Mk.3 radar 1942) Anti-air: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Anti-torpedo: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Torpedos: ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 0/5 Wichita heavy cruiser (1942 Upgrade) Armor (citadel): ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Fire-control: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 (Upgraded with Mk.3 radar 1942) Anti-air: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Anti-torpedo: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Torpedos: ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 0/5 Brooklyn/St. Louis light cruiser (1941) Armor (citadel): ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 (very high rate of fire: 120 RPM) Fire-control: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 (Upgraded with radars in 1942) Anti-air: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Anti-torpedo: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Torpedos: ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 0/5 Admiral Hipper heavy cruiser Armor (citadel): ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Fire-control: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Anti-air: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Anti-torpedo: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Torpedos: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Town-class light cruiser (1941/42) Armor (citadel): ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 (high rate of fire: 72-96 RPM) Fire-control: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 (upgraded with radars 1941) Anti-air: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Anti-torpedo: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Torpedos: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Cleveland light cruiser (1942) Armor (citadel): ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 (very high rate of fire: 100 RPM) Fire-control: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Anti-air: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 (Devastating!) Anti-torpedo: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Torpedos: ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 0/5 Brooklyn light cruiser (1944 Upgrade) Armor (citadel): ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 4/5 Fire-control: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 (Upgraded with new Mk.8 radar 1944) Anti-air: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Anti-torpedo: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Torpedos: ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 0/5 St. Louis light cruiser (1944 Upgrade) Armor (citadel): ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 Fire-control: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 (Upgraded with new Mk.8 radar 1944) Anti-air: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Anti-torpedo: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Torpedos: ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 0/5 Portland heavy cruiser (1944 Upgrade) Armor (citadel): ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 Fire-control: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 (Upgraded with new Mk.8 radar 1944) Anti-air: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Anti-torpedo: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Torpedos: ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 0/5 Cleveland light cruiser (1944 Upgrade) Armor (citadel): ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 Fire-control: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 (upgraded with Mk.8 radar 1943) Anti-air: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 (Devastating!) Anti-torpedo: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Torpedos: ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 0/5 Baltimore heavy cruiser (1943) Armor (citadel): ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 Fire-control: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 (Excellent!) Anti-air: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 (Devastating!) Anti-torpedo: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Torpedos: ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 0/5 This concludes the ranking of best cruisers of WW2. I did not include the Alaska large cruiser because it would be too OP in this list. here the Top5 results: 1. Baltimore 2. Cleveland (upgraded with Mk.8 1943) 3. Portland (upgraded with Mk.8 1944) 4. Brooklyn/St. Louis (upgraded with Mk.8 1944) 5. HMS Belfast (Town-class) Any criticism and suggested improvements welcome...
  5. chickenpie65

    What is the best battleship of WW2?

    Ok I agree, better speed can be useful in some situations, like running away from a stronger enemy....But that's not really winning a battle. Better speed is not really helping to win a fight against a strong enemy. That's why the speed isn't as important as the quality of fire control, which has much more impact on the outcome of a battle. Basically, a slower battleship with superior fire control radar is still gonna win against a faster battleship with worse fire control. Even if the faster enemy tries to escape the battle using their speed avantage, it's still a tactical win for the slower BB. This was only the worst case scenario and very rare. It's not so easy to achieve a magazine-kill. It has only happened 2 times (Bretagne and Hood). But usually the most common way to defeat an enemy battleship was by destroying the rangefinder and turrets first (since those parts are not protected as the magazine room). Once the rangefinder/radar is lost, the ship is doomed.... doesn't matter how thick the armor or how big the guns, without fire control it's over. That's why the first ship to make the first cruicial hit would usually win the battle. A shell only bounces off when striking the deck or roof armor, but not when hitting the face armor of a turret direcly, it won't just "bounce off", the shell will detonate and put it out of action. But again, it doesn't need to penetrate the (citadel) armor, just hitting and destroying the enemy's finder control range finder and guns is already enough to put the enemy ship out of actiona nd effectively cripple it. So it doesn't really matter as much if a 14" or a 15" shell hits, more important is who makes the hits and where. The Renown was only lucky the Germans had to follow very strict engagement rules which prohibited any engagement with battleships. Since all the German ships were used as convoy raiders, they were not allowed to engage any enemy battleships or battlecruisers. But the Scharnhorst was very well capable of destroying the lightly armored Renown, especially with her sister ship Gneisenau together. They could easilly have sunk that british battlecruiser, had they not been forced to disengage. But they made the first hit and could have continued pounding many more shells into the british battlecruiser, crippling her instantly. But since they were not allowed to engage capital ships they had to disengage, which is (sadly) what they did. The Scharnhrost only received the first hit from Renown AFTER it had already changed course to break off contact. So it was not really a deciding hit, since the Germans didn't even try to fight the Renown in the first place. Actually, Scharnhorst's guns could very well penetrate Hood's belt at 15 km, which is the same range that Bismarck scored the historical magazne hit. But again, it doesn't even need to penetrate the armor to cripple the ship, just hitting the rangefinder and turrets will already do the job. Because without functioning turrets and firecontrol / rangefinder the ship will be defenceless and disabled anyway. And since the Scharnhorst had a much better fire control, she would dominate the battle (if she was actually allowed to fight her)... The KGV class was on a much different level than the Scharnhorst anyway, not just because of bigger guns but because of better fire control radar. And that's exactly the point. Superior fire control won that battle. Not caliber size or speed... Radar changed the way of naval battle forever. 11" guns can just as well disable a turret with a direct hit, seriously do you really think it's just gonna bounce off a vertical front armor plate? No, of course not. Shells only bounce off when hitting the deck or roof armor (because of angling) but against a vertical face armor like on most turrets it would detonate on impact, sending shrapnell inside the turret killing the crew. And even if a shell bounces off the turret roof armor, it would still send shrapnell inside the turret killing the crew, just like it happened to the French battleship Stasbourg, when a shell from Hood hit her turret roof, failed to penetrate, but did exactly what I described above. By the way, even Yamato's big shells would not do much damage when hitting a non-critical part, like the mast for example, simply passing through and exploding harmlessly in the water doesn't do anything (overpenetrating)... This has nothing to do with the caliber size. As always it depends where the shell hits, not how big it is. Bismarck's fire control was not destroyed by penetrating the citadel, it was the radar on top of the main mast that was hit and destroyed. The fire control room is useless without the directors/rangefinders/radars which is located OUTSIDE of the citadel. Every ship has its radar outside of the citadel, since, you know, it can not work when it's inside the hull... so it has to be outside to fulill its purpose of detecting enemy shps... Except they never proved it... HMS Prince of Wales (a KGV class) was hit by one single torpedo and sunk immediately... really great "quality" huh?
  6. There are many different opinions and views on what was the best and most powerful battleships, but most of the topics are just personal opinions fueled by patriotism, not actual objective facts. So what is really the best battleship of WW2? In this thread we will try to find out... First to get the definition of "best" means the overal ranking of all important traits combined like firepower, protection, anti-air defence, anti-torpedo defence and fire-control (the most important factor). I will rate each ship class based on these traits: Citadel protection (belt & deck armor): The most important vital parts of every ship, like ammunition bunker and engine room is the heart of every ship. Turret armor: Altoguh the turret armor is not very important, since a direct hit would disable a turret anyway, regardless of armor. But it's still relevant to some degree because it can prevent catastrophic explosion (if hit). Anti-torpedo defence: How good is the underwater protection against torpedoes? Firepower: This includes the rate of fire, penetrating power of shells, max range of guns and of course the gun caliber. This trait is also heavily influned by the ships's fire-control value as seen below. Fire-control: This is the most important factor for ship vs ship engagement. It determines how good the accuracy of the gun fire is. Usually, the one that makes the first hit wins the battle. Anti-air defence: How good can the ship defend itself against attacking aircraft? Ok now that most important factors are covered, let's start rating the ships. I will begin with the weakest ships as we go down to the most powerful ones We will start with the Kongo-class 1941 model battlecruiser. Yes, this list will also include battlecruisers, since they have battleship guns, so they can theoretically fight against battleships too. The Kongo receives the folloing rating: Citadel protection: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 (very vulnerable) Turret armor: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 (very vulnerable) Anti-torpedo defence: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 (weak) Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 (moderate) Fire-control: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 (only optical rangefinder) Anti-air defence: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 (almost non-existent / very ineffective) Well, it's just to be expected that a battlecruiser isn't very strong. Now let's see how the Hood compares? Belt/citadel armor: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 (moderate) Turret armor: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 (moderate) Anti-torpedo defence: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 (moderate) Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 (moderate) Anti-air defence: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 (weak) Fire-control: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 (only optical range-finder, A little bit better than the Kongo, but still nowhere near worthy battleship rating... Richelieu (1940) In the early war years Richelieu's guns suffered from premature exploding and malfunction after firing a shell. This caused the gun to shatter and break after the first round shot. The cause of these problems was traced to a defective shell design. This problem would be fixed later though... Belt/citadel armor: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 (good) Turret armor: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 (good) Anti-torpedo defence: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 (good) Firepower: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 (gun malfunctions in 1940 losing half of her firepower after the first shots) Fire-control: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Anti-air defence: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 (weak) Fuso/Ise (1941 version) Fuso has lots of turrets, but they're also very weakly armored which makes them a nice fire works when getting hit... :/ Belt/citadel armor: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 (moderate) Turret armor: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 (weak) Anti-torpedo defence: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 (moderate) Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 4/5 (strong) Fire-control: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 (moderate, only optical range-finder) Anti-air defence: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 (almost non-existent / very weak) Scharnhorst (1940) Scharnhorst was one of the first ships in 1940 to receive a radar. However it was prone to malfunction after the main gun batteries fired due to the shock wave... Belt/citadel armor: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 5/5 (very good) Turret armor: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 (vulnerable) Anti-torpedo defence: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 (very good) Firepower: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 (medicore) Fire-control/radar: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 (Seetakt radar was vulnerable to the gun blast which caused it to shut down) Anti-air defence: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 (weak) Nagato (1944 upgrade) Belt/citadel armor: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Turret armor: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 Anti-torpedo defence: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 4/5 Fire-control: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 (upgraded with Type-21 and Type-22 radar in 1944) Anti-air defence: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 (very ineffective) Revenge-class (1942 upgrade) Belt/citadel armor: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Turret armor: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Anti-torpedo defence: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 3/5 Fire-control/radar: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 (upgraded with Type 273 and Type 279 radars in 1941/42) Anti-air defence: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 New York (1944 upgrade) Belt/citadel armor: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Turret armor: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Anti-torpedo defence: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Fire-control/radar: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 (upgraded with Mk.3 radar set) Anti-air defence: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 King George V-class (1940/41) The KGV-class was rushed into service with her new four-gun turret layout desgin which encountered many problems and malfunctions, causing the guns to jam when firing. These problems were fixed later though... Belt/citadel armor: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Turret armor: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 5/5 Anti-torpedo defence: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 (unrealiable gun system causing jamming, losing firepower after the first salvo) Fire-control radar: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 (received a Type 274 radar in 1941) Anti-Air defence: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Bismarck (1940) Belt/citadel armor: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 4/5 (the best protected citadel of any battleship. Well, except for the rotor shafts and rudder....) Turret armor: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Anti-torpedo defence: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 (very good anti-torpedo defence) Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 3/5 Fire-control radar: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 (Very accurate radar, but it was vulnerable to the main gun shock wave causing it to fail...) Anti-air defence: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 (very ineffective) Littorio Belt/citadel armor: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 Turret armor: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Anti-torpedo defence: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Fire-control radar: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 (received EC-3 radar in 1941 and updated version EC-3 ter in 1942) Anti-air defence: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 HMS Warspite (1941 upgrade) Belt/citadel armor: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 (moderate) Turret armor: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 4/5 (moderate) Anti-torpedo defence: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 (moderate) Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 4/5 (stronk) Fire-control/radar: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 (upgraded with radar in 1941) Anti-air defence: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 4/5 (moderate) Tirpitz 1943/44 Belt/citadel armor: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 5/5 Turret armor: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Anti-torpedo defence: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Fire-control radar: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Anti-air defence: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 (better anti-air defence than Bismarck) Colorado-class (1942 Upgrade Belt/citadel armor: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Turret armor: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 Anti-torpedo defence: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Fire-control radar: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 (upgraded with Mk.3 radar) Anti-air defence: ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ 2/5 Richelieu (1944 upgrade) Belt/citadel armor: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Turret armor: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Anti-torpedo defence: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 (the initial problems with the shells have been fixed and the guns now work fully operationally) Fire-control: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 (she received a british FC radar in 1944, after the Americans denied sharing their radar technology) Anti-air defence: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 (very effective anti-air defence network installed) King George V-class (1943) The gun problems have finally been fixed by 1943) Belt/citadel armor: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Turret armor: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 5/5 Anti-torpedo defence: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 (The gun problems have finally been worked out by 1943) Fire-control radar: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Anti-Air defence: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 (very good; it received proximity-fuze shells in 1944, which increased effective anti-air fire a lot) Rodney (1944) Belt/citadel armor: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Turret armor: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 5/5 Anti-torpedo defence: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 5/5 Fire-control radar: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 (Upgraded with Type 273 and Type 279 radars In 1941, which helped her to hit and destroy Bismarck) Anti-Air defence: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 (increased air defence) New Mexico (1942/44) Belt/citadel armor: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Turret armor: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 Anti-torpedo defence: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Fire-control/radar: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 (upgraded with Mk.3 FC radars in 1942) Anti-air defence: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 5/5 Pennslyvania (1944) Belt/citadel armor: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Turret armor: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 Anti-torpedo defence: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Fire-control/radar: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 (Upgraded with Mk.3 & Mk.8 radars in 1944) Anti-air defence: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 (Very effective Anti-Air radar-guided dual-purpose rapid-fire proximity-fuze shells) Yamato (1944/45 model) Belt/citadel armor: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 (Excellent!) Turret armor: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 (Excellent!) Anti-torpedo defence: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 (Excellent!) Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 (Excellent!) Fire-control radar: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 (Yamato and Musashi received Type-21 and Type 22 radars in 1943/44) Anti-Air defence: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 1/5 (still extremely ineffective anti-air defence...) 5. Tennesse-class (1943 upgrade) The old Tennesse-class BBs have been overhauled and upgraded with the new Mk.8 radar in 1943, which was the best fire-control radar at that time. It was the first radar in the world that not only showed the exact range to the acquired target, but also the exact bearing too. It was so accurate that even water splashes from the shells falling around the target were visible on the monitor. The Mk.8 allowed for the first time true blindfire capabilities without visual contact even during night at long range and first-round hit probability, meaning that the first salvo would already hit the target, which gave all American battleships upgraded with this new radar a huge advantage. Furthermore, the Tenessee-class was also upgraded with new radar-guided dual-purpose rapid-firing guns with proximity-fuze shells which could detect an enemy aircraft and detonate close to it, which was very effective even at long range. Additionally it got also upgraded with new anti-torpedo bulkheads added over the original hull to increase protection against torpedos hits. All of these new upgrades greatly increased the total fighting power of this old ship class and made it even superior to most other ship classes. Belt/citadel armor: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 4/5 Turret armor: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 4/5 Anti-torpedo defence: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 (Very effective anti-torpedoo protection; new bulkheads added over the original hull for extra protection) Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 5/5 Fire-control radar: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 (Very effective radar guided fire control; the Mk.8 enables blind fire and first-round hit probability) Anti-air defence: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 (Very effective Anti-Air with radar-guided dual-purpose rapid-firing guns with proximity-fuze shells) 4. USS West Virginia (Colorado-class, 1944 upgrade) West Virginia was also upgraded to the same level as the Tennessee-class. But she was the only ship of the Colorado-class to receive this upgrade standard. The other ships of this class didn't receive this level (at least not until 1945). Belt/citadel armor: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 (Very strong) Turret armor: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 (Very strong) Anti-torpedo defence: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 (new anti-torpedo bulkheads added over the original hull for extra protection) Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 5/5 Fire-control radar: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 (Very effective radar guided fire control; the Mk.8 enables blind-fire and first-round hit probability) Anti-air defence: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 (Very effective Anti-Air defence with radar-guided dual-purpose rapid-fire guns with proximity-fuze shells) 3. North Carolina-class (1944) Belt/citadel armor: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Turret armor: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 Anti-torpedo defence: ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 4/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 Fire-control radar: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 (Upgraded with the Mk.8 radar in 1943/44) Anti-air defence: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 (Excellent!) 2. South Dakota-class Belt/citadel armor: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Turret armor: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 Anti-torpedo defence: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 4/5 (Excellent!) Fire-control radar: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 (Upgraded with Mk.8 since 1942) Anti-air defence: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 (Excellent!) 1. Iowa-class Belt/citadel armor: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Turret armor: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 (Excellent!) Anti-torpedo defence: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ 3/5 Firepower: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 (Excellent!) Fire-control radar: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 (Outstanding!) Anti-air defence: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 5/5 (Ludicrous!) This concludes the ranking list of best battleships. Here are the Top 5 results again: 1. Iowa-class 2. South Dakota-class 3. North Carolina-class 4. USS West Virginia (Colorado-class) 5. Tennessee-class Any criticism and suggestions welcome :)
×