Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 1 battles to post in this section.
chickenpie65

What is the best battleship of WW2?

15 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
21 posts
2,590 battles

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:

image.thumb.png.99e8edb9e3c7796c5dfcf3af740194f4.png

 

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? 

 

image.thumb.png.396b582bdce98f050217d2144dc218f1.png

 

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...

 

image.thumb.png.924ee6d9e23528371a61c26f48bb93d6.png

 

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... :/

 

image.thumb.png.6c907412fb117a7f4af34ec603951d3a.png

 

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...

 

image.thumb.png.2d75876557e948baf7137131bfcc6120.png

 

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)

 

image.png

 

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)

 

image.thumb.png.a6f8544b660682d60731d0fa93d5ebc4.png

 

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)

 

image.thumb.png.65813387106197a739b6a4fa8abd2e97.png

 

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...  

 

image.thumb.png.97580221c970277dae7c33fccbf0dc38.png

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)

 

image.thumb.png.fc709bfe7732b402429744a09878175a.png

 

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 

 

image.thumb.png.6c93bf7477e6d0d66d7eb467e71097e3.png

 

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)

 

image.thumb.png.2a9a23704acddfb248fb3bf9c5455569.png

 

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

 

image.thumb.png.d64a8dd4128056c3a88f43ed4af74db1.png

 

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

 

image.thumb.png.d5e56a80a1466dcfa1ac3bb5aabd1660.png

 

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)

 

image.thumb.png.4660a6b770d81eeff42ee7b8bf030237.png

 

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)

image.thumb.png.35fcedc8e7be29ac778ef70e6564080d.png

 

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)

 

image.png

 

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)

 

image.thumb.png.fac01a2dcf72d0dc01353359f66754a2.png

 

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)

 

image.thumb.png.837f8ab4343ac685af32135491af4913.png

 

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)

 

image.thumb.png.9b2dec94277ccc8c1526aa2262215233.png

 

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.

 

image.thumb.png.26811260b9a688f388937cc0215b9b61.png

 

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).

 

image.thumb.png.f258ea66c7e5f3c78ac4c403d3aa2429.png

 

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)

 

image.thumb.png.cb42f3fbca4a8c2f3c050a283d5741a0.png

 

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

 

image.thumb.png.d18e96d6b89d0dcfbb3ac7563dd6dfd3.png  

 

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 

 

image.thumb.png.c6a2e5b30968e30faa8b281732304a1a.png

 

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 :) 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4 posts
580 battles

I'm sorry to be critical of something which has clearly had a lot of work put into it is not a particularly good listing at all. I'll go down the reasons from biggest to smallest weakness:

Firstly, in terms of the metrics: The complete omission of ship mobility, both in tactical terms (top speed it might achieve in a battle) or operational (both it's sustained speed capabilities and it's operational range) is a fairly glaring weakness. Mobility is one of the key important elements of warship design. 

 

Secondly, turret armour, as you admit yourself, could easily be merged with belt/citadel armour, as there are almost no ships on here which have markedly superior turret armour to their belt armour, and almost no capital ships have been destroyed by direct hits to their turrets. 

 

 

Thirdly, I'll get on to individual ships:

 

Your assessment of Fuso's firepower seems to be based on an assumption that her multiple, older Vickers 14" guns is somewhat comparable to the contemporary 15" guns on the QE class Battleships. In reality, it's distinctly inferior, having something like half the bursting charge, firing a shell close to 200kg lighter at only slightly higher muzzle velocities. 

 

BL 15" Mk 1. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_15-42_mk1.php 

 

14" Vickers gun http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_14-45_t41.php

 

However, German guns seem to be treat very favourably, with Bismarck and Tirpitz's 15" guns being treat as superior to the 15" guns on Warspite/The QE's/Revenge/Hood, despite their being similar in terms of kinetic energy developed, armour penetration and bursting charge. 

 

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-52_skc34.php

 

Oddly, Scharnhorst's 9 11" guns are against treat as semi-comparable weapons, despite their much lower over all weight (300 vs 800kg) to the 15" weapons.

 

Link http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_11-545_skc34.php

 

In short: Scharnhorst is the lowest-tier, warranting a 1 or 2/5. They were excellent raiders but poor against even battlecruisers. Kongo next, with a 2/5 for her firepower. Fuso's sheer volume of fire possibly warrants her a 3/5, assuming we're standardising the 3/5 level around the 8x2 15" battleship design. 

 

Given Bismarck and Tirpitz's belt armour completely failed to protect their fire control systems (resulting in the Bismarck becoming a mission kill after only a dozen hits), a 5/5 belt/citadel armour score is not appropriate. 3/5 is more suitable.

 

Bismarck's fire control radar also knocked itself out in use. 4/5 is not warranted: 2/5 is more suitable as a self-destructing weapons system is not a well designed one. 

 

Further, given Yamato's torpedo defence system would force armour plate into her upper hull and armour belt, this is less than ideal and does not warrant a 5/5. 3/5 is more suitable. 

 

The Iowa's did not have particularly heavy belt armour (given their roles as fast battleships) so a 4/5 would seem more suitable.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
21 posts
2,590 battles

Thanks for your critics, opinions, views and ideas I really appreciate it! 

 

On 8/11/2019 at 2:24 PM, Drang_unconquerable said:

Firstly, in terms of the metrics: The complete omission of ship mobility, both in tactical terms (top speed it might achieve in a battle) or operational (both it's sustained speed capabilities and it's operational range) is a fairly glaring weakness. Mobility is one of the key important elements of warship design. 

 

Yeah speed has definitely a value, but not a battle winning value. The speed is not as important of a deciding key factor in winning a battle, as is a superior fire control. 

Better speed has only been useful when chasing a fleeing enemy or trying to escape from a stronger enemy, but other than that it's not really helping to win a gun fight at the most cruicial starting point  of a battle....

 

So basically, a slower battleship with superior fire control radar is still gonna win against a faster battleship with inferior fire cotnrol. 

 

On 8/11/2019 at 2:24 PM, Drang_unconquerable said:

Your assessment of Fuso's firepower seems to be based on an assumption that her multiple, older Vickers 14" guns is somewhat comparable to the contemporary 15" guns on the QE class Battleships. In reality, it's distinctly inferior, having something like half the bursting charge, firing a shell close to 200kg lighter at only slightly higher muzzle velocities. 

 

 

Fuso's firepower was definitely equal to that of QE -class. The difference in bursting charge of the shell didn't make much of a difference in reality when hitting a ship. 

Reality is not a video game with "health bars" or "damage points". The superstructure of a ship is very thin and vulnerable, any hit will cause damage and fires.

 

What is more important is WHERE the shell hits, rather than what caliber the shell is. Even a 8" shell from cruiser can achieve a critical hit when destroying the fire control rangerfinder, leaving the enemy blind and defenceless.

Even the  biggest guns (from Yamato) would not make much damage when it hits a non-critical part (penetrating the mast and exploding in the water won't do much damage)... You get the point. 

 

But it doesn't matter if it's a 14" or 15" shell hitting a ship, if's gonna do about the same amount of damage. 

The only thing that really makes a difference is that HMS Warspite had a better FC radar which gave her a better hitting chance than Fuso. This is what really matters, not the gun caliber!

 

 

Quote

However, German guns seem to be treat very favourably, with Bismarck and Tirpitz's 15" guns being treat as superior to the 15" guns on Warspite/The QE's/Revenge/Hood, despite their being similar in terms of kinetic energy developed, armour penetration and bursting charge. 

 

Well, Bismarck's guns were a lot more powerful in raw penetrating power than the british 15" guns. Compare 450 mm at 18km to 300 mm at the same distance... yeah

 

As for the reason of Hood's inferior firepower rating, it's because of her inferior fire control and the lack of radar. As I mentioned above: the "firepower value will also be influenced by the fire control as well".

Which means that since Bismarck with her radar had a better fire control and better hitting chance than Hood, it gets less points in firepower rating. 

 

On 8/11/2019 at 2:24 PM, Drang_unconquerable said:

Oddly, Scharnhorst's 9 11" guns are against treat as semi-comparable weapons, despite their much lower over all weight (300 vs 800kg) to the 15" weapons.

 

Again, the gun caliber doesn't matter as much as you may think. Reality is not a computer game with "damage points" and "health points" 

In reality even a 8" guns from a cruiser will do a lot of damage to the ship. Scharnhorst's guns were fairly capable of crippling any battleship if it hits.

You seem to forget that most part of a battleship was only thinly armored. The only parts that had thick armor were the turrets and citadel. Everything else was vulnerable even to cruiser guns.

Scharnhorst had a good chance  to even win against the Hood. Altough she would not ammo rack her like Bismarck did, but Scharnhorst could still make the first hits on Hood and then cripple her steadily.

 

 

On 8/11/2019 at 2:24 PM, Drang_unconquerable said:

In short: Scharnhorst is the lowest-tier, warranting a 1 or 2/5. They were excellent raiders but poor against even battlecruisers. 

 

The Scharnhorst was superior to the british battlecruiser (Renown class). She was never used to her full potential due to the German high command order to avoid any engagement with british capital ships.

Because she was  used as a surface raider, she was needed to attack convoys, so any damage would have to be repaired, which would make her unmavailable for surface raiding. So any unnecessary action was forbidden.

She could easilly defeat that british battlecruiser, if she wasn't ordered to avoid the battle...

 

But I do agree that her firepower rating should not be higher than 2/5... I will fix that in the list

 

On 8/11/2019 at 2:24 PM, Drang_unconquerable said:

Given Bismarck and Tirpitz's belt armour completely failed to protect their fire control systems (resulting in the Bismarck becoming a mission kill after only a dozen hits), a 5/5 belt/citadel armour score is not appropriate. 3/5 is more suitable.

 

The Fire control (director/rangerfinder/radar) is not part of the belt or citadel armor! The Fire director and rangefinder and radar is place outside the citadel on top of the mast of the superstructure.

Just like on all other ships, the fire control Is not protected! The fire control director is always vulnerable on ALL other ships too! That's why making the first hits on the enemy is so crucial and deciding.

 

But I agree with you that Bismarck's fire control doesn't deserve a 4/5 rating, after all it was really unrealiable. So it should perhaps be 3/5... But not 2/5  that is just way too low, even for optical rangefinder standards.

Even a good optical rangefinder alone already deserves at least a 3/5 . 

 

 

On 8/11/2019 at 2:24 PM, Drang_unconquerable said:

Further, given Yamato's torpedo defence system would force armour plate into her upper hull and armour belt, this is less than ideal and does not warrant a 5/5. 3/5 is more suitable. 

 

Yamato had by far the best integrity of any battleship durting WW2. She took more torpedo hits than all other battleships in the war combined!

Of coruse it wasn't perfect, but then again nothing else was perfect. But it was still better than any other ship's underwater protection and that is the point that matters.

If Yamato's anti-torpedo system can't get a 5/5 then no other ship can!

 

 

Anyway thanks for your criticism and opinions, I will think about it and update the list..

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4 posts
580 battles
56 minutes ago, chickenpie65 said:

Thanks for your critics, opinions, views and ideas I really appreciate it! Any critics is welcome

 

Speed has never been a deciding key factor in winning a battleship engagement in reality. So it's not as important when rating the offensive power projection of a battleship. 

 

Superior speed has only been useful when trying to escape from a stronger enemy, but running away is not winning a fight, it's actually admitting defeat.

Besides,  faster speed doesn't guarantee victory. The Rodney was slower than the Bismarck, yet it still won the fight thanks to superior FC radar. And THAT is what matters in a battle! Not the speed. 

 

Your response is appreciated :)

 

Speed is absolutely a key deciding factor in winning a meaningful battleship engagement. The side with a speed advantage may dictate the range, the angle of attack and when the attack takes place (night, storms et al) and may, except in confined waters, simply withdraw in the face of unfavourable odds or if a previously favourable battle goes badly for them. 
To continue your example: Rodney (though an excellent design for a 35,000 tonne treaty ship) would have never caught Bismarck, if the ship hadn't already been a mission kill due to the damage to her rudder. Bismarck would have been free to have escape and hole up in France, and potentially escape with Scharnhorst and Gniesenau during the Channel Dash and join up with Tirpitz in Norway later: a nightmare scenario for the Arctic Convoys. 

 

56 minutes ago, chickenpie65 said:

Fuso's firepower was definitely equal to that of QE -class. You pay too much attention to irrelevant things like bursting charge which in reality didn't make much of a difference when hitting a ship. 

Reality is not a video game with "health bars" or "damage points". The superstructure of a ship is very thin and vulnerable, any hit will cause damage and fires.

 

What is more important is WHERE the shell hits, rather than what caliber the shell is. Even a 8" shell from cruiser can cause damage when hitting the superstructure (destroying the fire control rangerfinder and radar etc).

But it doesn't matter if it's a 14" or 15" shell, if's gonna do about the same amount of damage anyway.

The only thing that really makes a difference is that HMS Warspite had a better FC radar which gave her a better hitting chance than Fuso. This is what really matters, not the gun caliber!

 

 

I'm sorry, but this argument has no basis in naval history. Damage to the superstructure is of course a real problem for any ship, but the fact remains that the most reliable way to kill a battleship is to punch through it's armour belt and detonate a shell inside it. If it were not the case, navies would not have developed larger and larger guns, with heavier shells, greater armour piercing characteristics and larger burst weights. While superstructure hits were problematic, they were far less damaging than penetrating hits to the magazines or engines. Bursting charge, again, is very important: simply knocking a hole through a compartmentalised and repairable ship is not going to kill it, but the higher HE charge will cause more damage to communications, electrical systems, pumps and the crew itself.

To give a physics example (discounting bursting charge for simplicty):

 

BL Mk 1 15" gun, using WW2 era APC ammo:

 

879 kg projectile travelling at 749 m/s: 658371 joules of force at muzzle. Sure, some of that will decrease, but as it's the heavier shell it will suffer less deceleration than it's lighter counterpart.

 

Vickers 14" gun using Japanese WW2 era APC ammo:

 

673kg projectile travelling at 775 m/s: 521575 newtons of force at muzzle. 13,000 less. The gun is significantly inferior in armour piercing capability. So, no, it's not going to do the same amount of damage: it's far more likely to simply bounce off the armour of a WW2 BB, whereas a 15" shell is far more likely to penetrate. There is a reason the Japanese Navy simply didn't build upgraded Fusos, and switched to the 16"-armed Nagatos.

56 minutes ago, chickenpie65 said:

Again, the gun caliber doesn't matter as much as you may think. Reality is not a computer game with "damage points" and "health points" 

In reality even a 8" guns from a cruiser will do a lot of damage to the ship. Scharnhorst's guns were fairly capable of crippling any battleship if it hits.

You seem to forget that most part of a battleship was only thinly armored. The only parts that had thick armor were the turrets and citadel. Everything else was vulnerable even to cruiser guns.

Scharnhorst would  even win against the Hood. Altough she would not ammo rack her like Bismarck did, but Scharnhorst would still make the first hits on Hood and then cripple her steadily.

 

 

 

The Scharnhorst was FAR superior to any british battlecruiser. She was never used to her full potential due to the German high command order to avoid any engagement with british capital ships.

Because she was "abused" as a surface raider (the Germans liked to sink as many transport convoys as possible so she was forbidden to get into unnecessary action)

But she could EASILLY defeat that british battlecruiser, if she wasn't ordered to avoid the battle...

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but this is entirely disproven by history. When Scharnhorst and Gniesenau both met Renown off Loloften, Renown got the better of both of them, as the three hits that she did score against Gniesenau did far more damage than the two which the German battlecruiser accomplished. When Scharnhorst met Duke of York off the North Cape and wasn't able to run, she was promptly sent to the bottom. Simply hitting an enemy ship with shells is pointless if all they do is bounce off her armour or put 11" holes in non-critical parts of the ship, if your opponent can disable your turrets, machinery or blow up your magazine with it's main armament. This is why battleships had belt, deck and magazine armour, and armoured citadels encompassing the ships vitals.

Given Scharnhorst could not penetrate Hood's armour at main battle ranges, no, she was not capable of crippling Hood if she hit. If you can't penetrate the citadel, you can't cripple a ship, except with a very lucky hit against the prop shaft. There's a reason the Germans were going to upgrade her triple 11" guns to twin 15" turrets.

 

56 minutes ago, chickenpie65 said:

The Fire control system is not even part of the belt armor! How is the belt armor on the hull even supposed to protect something that is on top of the superstreucture? 

Do you even know what the fire control is? It's the rangefinder on top of the ship. It's not protected on any ship! The fire control is always vulnerable on ALL other ships too! Not only on the Bismarck!

 

The fire control directors are on the main masts (usually), with secondary directors elsewhere. Information from these directors is sent through fire control cables, down the mast, and through the ship. In most post-WW1 battleships, these cables ran below the deck armour and the main armour belt. Not so in Bismarck's case, so when KGV's 14" and Rodney's 16" shells began exploding against the Bismarck's turtleback citadel, the blast and shrapnel effects took out the fire control cables and rendered her a mission kill long before her turrets stopped firing. 

 

56 minutes ago, chickenpie65 said:

Yamato had by far the best integrity of any battleship durting WW2. She took more torpedo hits than all other battleships in the war combined!

Of coruse it wasn't perfect, but then again nothing else was perfect. But it was still better than any other ship's underwater protection and that is the point that matters.

Seriously you are nitpicking on completely irrelevant things! If you think Yamato's anti-torpedo system can't get a 5/5 then no other ship can!

 

 

Anyway thanks again for your criticism and opinions, I will think about it and do some editing in the list.

 

Yamato was an 80,000 tonne behemoth (which wasn't helped by the torpedo strikes being on both sides of her hull, iirc, which counterflooded the ship and improved it's stability), which doesn't help. In terms of the actual quality of her protection, the systems on the KGVs, Iowa's and other late-war allied BBs were better. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
21 posts
2,590 battles

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. 

 

Quote

 the most reliable way to kill a battleship is to punch through it's armour belt and detonate a shell inside it. If it were not the case, navies would not have developed larger and larger guns, with heavier shells, greater armour piercing characteristics and larger burst weights. While superstructure hits were problematic, they were far less damaging than penetrating hits to the magazines or engines.

 

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.

 

Quote

So, no, it's not going to do the same amount of damage: it's far more likely to simply bounce off the armour of a WW2 BB, whereas a 15" shell is far more likely to penetrate.

 

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.

 

On 8/11/2019 at 11:15 PM, Drang_unconquerable said:

I'm sorry, but this is entirely disproven by history. When Scharnhorst and Gniesenau both met Renown off Loloften, Renown got the better of both of them,

 

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.

 

On 8/11/2019 at 11:15 PM, Drang_unconquerable said:


Given Scharnhorst could not penetrate Hood's armour at main battle ranges, no, she was not capable of crippling Hood if she hit. If you can't penetrate the citadel, you can't cripple a ship, except with a very lucky hit against the prop shaft. There's a reason the Germans were going to upgrade her triple 11" guns to twin 15" turrets.

 

 

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)...

 

On 8/11/2019 at 11:15 PM, Drang_unconquerable said:

When Scharnhorst met Duke of York off the North Cape and wasn't able to run, she was promptly sent to the bottom. Simply hitting an enemy ship with shells is pointless if all they do is bounce off her armour or put 11" holes in non-critical parts of the ship, if your opponent can disable your turrets, machinery or blow up your magazine with it's main armament. 

 

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. 

 

On 8/11/2019 at 11:15 PM, Drang_unconquerable said:

The fire control directors are on the main masts (usually), with secondary directors elsewhere. Information from these directors is sent through fire control cables, down the mast, and through the ship. In most post-WW1 battleships, these cables ran below the deck armour and the main armour belt. Not so in Bismarck's case, so when KGV's 14" and Rodney's 16" shells began exploding against the Bismarck's turtleback citadel, the blast and shrapnel effects took out the fire control cables and rendered her a mission kill long before her turrets stopped firing. 

 

 

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... 

 

 

On 8/11/2019 at 11:15 PM, Drang_unconquerable said:

In terms of the actual quality of her protection, the systems on the KGVs, Iowa's and other late-war allied BBs were better. 

 

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?

 

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OMPG]
Beta Tester
146 posts
4,782 battles
On 8/12/2019 at 12:15 AM, Drang_unconquerable said:

 

Yamato was an 80,000 tonne behemoth (which wasn't helped by the torpedo strikes being on both sides of her hull, iirc, which counterflooded the ship and improved it's stability), which doesn't help. In terms of the actual quality of her protection, the systems on the KGVs, Iowa's and other late-war allied BBs were better. 

Nitpicking here but it was Musashi that benefitted from getting hit from many directions. The americans learned their lesson and in the destruction of Yamato concentrated torpedo attacks on one side to capsize the ship faster.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OMPG]
Beta Tester
146 posts
4,782 battles
On 8/12/2019 at 3:11 AM, chickenpie65 said:

 

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?

 

Prince of Wales got hit outside the torpedo protection system close to stern. This hit caused twisting of a propeller shaft that was left running as the captain had no idea of the severity of the hit and was thinking that sustaining speed was essential in dodging attacks. A sound choice by him however the twisted shaft that was left running at high revolutions and slowly grinded a hole through otherwise water tight compartments as the shaft ran through half the ship to the engine rooms thus making it soon impossible to contain the progressive flooding. So that hit had nothing to do with torpedo defense systems but inherent weakness in most ship designs.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
21 posts
2,590 battles

I know, but if it happened to the Bismarck or Yamato, it would be a "flawed design" and If it happens to allied ships its just bad luck. Double standards much

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
5,256 posts
2,939 battles
On 8/11/2019 at 2:32 AM, chickenpie65 said:

1. Iowa-class 

 

Belt/citadel armor:        ★  ★  ★  ★  ☆   4/5 
Turret armor:                   ★  ★  ★  ★  ★   5/5  (Excellent!)
Anti-torpedo defence:   ★  ★  ★  ★  ☆   4/5  
Firepower:                        ★  ★  ★ ★  ★    5/5  (Excellent!)
Anti-air defence:             ★  ★ ★  ★  ★    5/5  (Ludicrous!)

Fire-control radar:          ★  ★  ★  ★  ★    5/5  (Outstanding!)

 

Iowa's anti-torpedo defence was poor, probably inferior not only to contemporaries, but to the previous generation aswell. Not only did it take considerable more damage than expected when sturck by a charge it was designed to resist to, it also failed to cover appropriately the A magazine, which was also so large that, combined with the forward placement, a torpedo in the cheek would easily send fumes and shards flying all over the magizing. And their shells were not that stable.

Iowa's achille's heel is her torpedo defence. It's bad, like, bad bad. A 4/5 to it is more than twice what it deserves.

 

On 8/11/2019 at 2:32 AM, chickenpie65 said:

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 the new Mk.8 radar in 1944. 

This new radar not only gives the exact range to the target, but also the bearing as well, allowing for effective blindfire at day or night at any range.

 

 

Belt/citadel armor:        ★  ★  ★  ★  ☆   4/5  (Very strong)
Turret armor:                   ★  ★  ★  ★  ★   5/5  (Very strong)
Anti-torpedo defence:   ★  ★  ★  ★  ★   5/5  (Extremely effective; it got 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 against enemy targets at long range)
Anti-air defence:             ★  ★ ★  ★  ★    5/5  (Very effective Anti-Air defence with radar-guided dual-purpose rapid-fire guns with proximity-fuze shells) 

 

Well, unless West Virginia was rearmed with Mk7 main guns, apparently the 16''/45 Mark 5&8 are as good as the Mark 7 and Yamato's guns. I'm curious to know how in the world considering these couldn't even fire the AP Mk8 Superheavy shell, took about 10s more between salvos, had less range, were less accurate, penetrated overall less due to the slightly-to-very-much lower energy they could discharge on impact, and used shells that carried less explosive. Makes you wonder !

 

On 8/11/2019 at 2:32 AM, chickenpie65 said:

Littorio 

 

Belt/citadel armor:        ★  ★  ★  ★  ★   5/5 
Turret armor:                   ★  ★  ★  ★  ☆   4/5  
Anti-torpedo defence:   ★  ★  ★  ★  ☆   4/5  
Firepower:                        ★  ★  ★ ★  ☆    4/5  

Fire-control radar:          ★  ★  ★  ★  ☆   4/5  (received EC-3 "Gufo" radar in 1942)
Anti-air defence:             ★  ☆ ☆  ☆  ☆   1/5 

 

The Gufo radar was not only not even designed for fire control, but attempts to use it that way failed miserably, as it was fairly inaccurate and had somewhat gigantic blind spots due to its position.

Do you even know what you're talking about ? Did you rank it 4/5 out of random ?

 

On 8/11/2019 at 2:32 AM, chickenpie65 said:

King George V-class (1944)

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:                        ★  ★  ★ ★  ☆    4/5  (The  gun problems have finally been worked out by 1943)

Fire-control radar:          ★  ★  ★  ★  ☆   4/5  

Anti-Air defence:            ★  ★ ★  ★  ☆    4/5  (very good) 

 

Jesus.

I do not have the time to review every single thing you wrote, so I allowed myself to only point some blatantly wrong things I saw.

Your level of bias is... Russian ! Congratulations.

 

Won't even talk about the fact that a ship is more than number+caliber of big guns and width of armor. Yes even a battleship. Ever heard of range of action ? dispertion pattern ? Machinery output ? Damage control & safety measures ?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
21 posts
2,590 battles
On 8/13/2019 at 6:06 PM, LastButterfly said:

Iowa's anti-torpedo defence was poor, probably inferior not only to contemporaries, but to the previous generation aswell. Not only did it take considerable more damage than expected when sturck by a charge it was designed to resist to, it also failed to cover appropriately the A magazine, which was also so large that, combined with the forward placement, a torpedo in the cheek would easily send fumes and shards flying all over the magizing. And their shells were not that stable.

Iowa's achille's heel is her torpedo defence. It's bad, like, bad bad. A 4/5 to it is more than twice what it deserves.

 

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

 

On 8/13/2019 at 6:06 PM, LastButterfly said:

Well, unless West Virginia was rearmed with Mk7 main guns, apparently the 16''/45 Mark 5&8 are as good as the Mark 7 and Yamato's guns. I'm curious to know how in the world considering these couldn't even fire the AP Mk8 Superheavy shell, took about 10s more between salvos, had less range, were less accurate, penetrated overall less due to the slightly-to-very-much lower energy they could discharge on impact, and used shells that carried less explosive. Makes you wonder !

 

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.    

On 8/13/2019 at 6:06 PM, LastButterfly said:

The Gufo radar was not only not even designed for fire control, but attempts to use it that way failed miserably, as it was fairly inaccurate and had somewhat gigantic blind spots due to its position.

Do you even know what you're talking about ? Did you rank it 4/5 out of random ?

 

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.

 

Quote

Won't even talk about the fact that a ship is more than number+caliber of big guns and width of armor. Yes even a battleship. 

 

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. 

 

On 8/13/2019 at 6:06 PM, LastButterfly said:

Ever heard of range of action ? dispertion pattern ? Machinery output ? Damage control & safety measures ?

 

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. 

 

On 8/13/2019 at 6:06 PM, LastButterfly said:

I do not have the time to review every single thing you wrote, so I allowed myself to only point some blatantly wrong things I saw.

Your level of bias is... Russian ! Congratulations.

 

 

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! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
5,256 posts
2,939 battles
11 hours ago, chickenpie65 said:

Iowa's anti-torpedo protection was good for the most part of the hull

 

The heavy armored used to make the bulkheads was incapable of bending enough to accept the pressure of a torpedo explosion and the resulting gas. Cracks unvariably formed and bulkhead joints were damaged, causing flooding to extent beyond the torpedo defense system. And that was not a one-time lucky torp, that was a consistant behavior. A first fix proved a failure aswell.

When corrective plans were finally drawn, it was too late to refit the existing ships. The improved system was to be put on Illinois & Kentucky. Either way, that was more of a stopgap than anything, and it remained largely inferior to the TDS carried on North Carolina - or virtually any moderne TDS design, from anywhere.

 

You didn't actually look up anything, right ? It's faily well-known that Iowa's TDS was defective. It's like you're only talking about thickness, forgetting that it's far from the only thing that makes a TDS good.

 

11 hours ago, chickenpie65 said:

As I clearly stated in the first post: "the firepower rating is influenced by the fire control rating as well"

 

Wow, so you have a "fire control radar" ranking and a "gun" ranking that depends on the fire control radar ? What exactly is the point, except if you're trying to favor in the ranking ships with fire control radar ?

 

11 hours ago, chickenpie65 said:

because better accuracy and better hit probability obviously increases the overal firepower potential, doesn't it?

 

No, they don't. A ship's firepower is the same regardless of wether it's accurate or not ; that's precisely what the word "potential" in your sentence means.

 

11 hours ago, chickenpie65 said:

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.

 

Well, no, not necessarly a battleship armored belt or internal bulkhead. That's precisely why things like penetration, bursting charge, biting angle and so on are important, you know ? 'cause we're talking battleships here. If you're telling me "yeah but their guns could wreck a DD in one shell" well duh, all of them could do that and thus they'd all deserve 5/5.

 

11 hours ago, chickenpie65 said:

and the same caliber

 

Oh jesus. I've told you didn't I ? Caliber is far from making it all. Just take Nelson's and compare it to US guns of the same caliber and tell me if performances are similar !

Or, if you're actually willing to do some reasearch, how about you compare in depth the performances of Littorio, Richelieu, and Bismarck's 380~381mm ? Such a similar caliber, such difference in performances... not that you'd know apparently.

 

11 hours ago, chickenpie65 said:

The "maximum range" is completely irrelevant because they wouldn't even be hitting anything at 40 km anyway.

 

Are you aware of something called ballistics, or whatever its name is in english ? Do you expect a shell which only reaches 10km short to another to be capable of having the same effective range ? Although this is not a general truth (once again, Iowa's maximum range is not that high), the maximum range is the first indicator of the probable effective range. Of course a ship that struggle to hit  far will have a shorter effective range than the once which has no problem with it.

 

11 hours ago, chickenpie65 said:

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 .

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.

 

Yes, and I assume you're gonna tell me next that the Japanese Type 22 was a great fire control radar because it was used as such and gave decent performances ?

That's not how it works, the Type 22 was hopelessly inaccurate, the Japanese just used it to quickly get a general direction when they couldn't spot the target easily. With a 500m margin of error in average, good luck at hitting anything !

And the EC.3 ter was similar. It was an improvement over the previous model but it was still defective and hopelessly ineffective in fire direction. When it worked at all and wasn't hindered by its blind spots or mere rain, btw.

 

11 hours ago, chickenpie65 said:

The "range of action" mostly depends on how good the fire control is.

 

The range of a action of the SHIP. When would we talk of "action" for guns ? It's the maximum range at which your ship can operate from a friendly harbor.

 

11 hours ago, chickenpie65 said:

"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?

 

Says the guy who litterally told earlier that "better accuracy and better hit probability obviously increases the overal firepower".

Yes, all guns have dispertion patterns. Some have worse than others. That didn't even cross your mind now did it ?

 

11 hours ago, chickenpie65 said:

"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.

 

Speed is likewise crutial for reaching a destination in a timely manner, but you are right. In combat, the most important is not the machinery output itself, it's the machinery's position within the ship and its ability to maintain the highest battle speed possible. Because believe it or not but an 8kn battleship still makes a better target than one steaming at 30kn.

 

12 hours ago, chickenpie65 said:

"Damage control"? Again, how am I supposed to rate the "damage control" of each ship class? Based on what exactly? 

 

Ever heard of compartmentalization ? Distribution and effectivness of pumps and fire mains ? Distribution of the electrical system that would activate said pumps ?

Also, anything that eases or makes harder the damage control ? Safeguard systems, such as additional safety output for machinery or main battery ? Rudder armor and capability to manoeuver with a damaged rudder ?

I'm talking about the ship here, not the crew.

 

12 hours ago, chickenpie65 said:

You're mostly nitpicking on small things that have little meaning in an actual battle.  

 

No, you are the one viewing a blurred picture. You basically rank BBs based on gun caliber, armor thickness, and the presence of a radar. Even within these categories, you're completely biased.

I'm not nitpicking, you're cherry-picking.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4 posts
580 battles
22 hours ago, TohtoriP said:

Nitpicking here but it was Musashi that benefitted from getting hit from many directions. The americans learned their lesson and in the destruction of Yamato concentrated torpedo attacks on one side to capsize the ship faster.

Thank you for clarifying that, it will help me remember the difference.

 

Honestly I'm not sure if it's worth arguing with the OP, he doesn't appear to be arguing in good faith (ignoring the fact that it was a belt penetration that crippled Scharnhorst, ignoring the fact Bismarck's armour did not protect her fire control cables, believing a 300kg 11" shell with a 7kg bursting charge is just as good as an 800kg 15" shell with a 20kg bursting charge despite all physics telling us otherwise) and ignoring critical issues like gun performance, ship strategic range and operational mobility: things real navies at the time all took very seriously (hence the number of fast battleships in this thread).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
21 posts
2,590 battles
8 hours ago, LastButterfly said:

 

The heavy armored used to make the bulkheads was incapable of bending enough to accept the pressure of a torpedo explosion and the resulting gas. Cracks unvariably formed and bulkhead joints were damaged, causing flooding to extent beyond the torpedo defense system. And that was not a one-time lucky torp, that was a consistant behavior. A first fix proved a failure aswell.

When corrective plans were finally drawn, it was too late to refit the existing ships. The improved system was to be put on Illinois & Kentucky. Either way, that was more of a stopgap than anything, and it remained largely inferior to the TDS carried on North Carolina - or virtually any moderne TDS design, from anywhere.

 

You didn't actually look up anything, right ? It's faily well-known that Iowa's TDS was defective. It's like you're only talking about thickness, forgetting that it's far from the only thing that makes a TDS good.

 

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.

 

8 hours ago, LastButterfly said:

Wow, so you have a "fire control radar" ranking and a "gun" ranking that depends on the fire control radar ? What exactly is the point, except if you're trying to favor in the ranking ships with fire control radar ?

 

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.

 

8 hours ago, LastButterfly said:

A ship's firepower is the same regardless of wether it's accurate or not ; that's precisely what the word "potential" in your sentence means.

 

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! 

 

 

8 hours ago, LastButterfly said:

 That's precisely why things like penetration, bursting charge, biting angle and so on are important, you know ? 'cause we're talking battleships here.

 

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. 

 

 

8 hours ago, LastButterfly said:

If you're telling me "yeah but their guns could wreck a DD in one shell" well duh, all of them could do that and thus they'd all deserve 5/5.

 

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.

 

 

8 hours ago, LastButterfly said:

Caliber is far from making it all. Just take Nelson's and compare it to US guns of the same caliber and tell me if performances are similar !

Or, if you're actually willing to do some reasearch, how about you compare in depth the performances of Littorio, Richelieu, and Bismarck's 380~381mm ? Such a similar caliber, such difference in performances... not that you'd know apparently.

 

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. 

 

 

8 hours ago, LastButterfly said:

Are you aware of something called ballistics, or whatever its name is in english ? Do you expect a shell which only reaches 10km short to another to be capable of having the same effective range ? Although this is not a general truth (once again, Iowa's maximum range is not that high), the maximum range is the first indicator of the probable effective range. Of course a ship that struggle to hit  far will have a shorter effective range than the once which has no problem with it.

 

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.

 

 

8 hours ago, LastButterfly said:

and I assume you're gonna tell me next that the Japanese Type 22 was a great fire control radar because it was used as such and gave decent performances 

 

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.

 

 

8 hours ago, LastButterfly said:

the Type 22 was hopelessly inaccurate, the Japanese just used it to quickly get a general direction when they couldn't spot the target easily. With a 500m margin of error in average, good luck at hitting anything !

 

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.

 

 

8 hours ago, LastButterfly said:

And the EC.3 ter was similar. It was an improvement over the previous model but it was still defective and hopelessly ineffective in fire direction. When it worked at all and wasn't hindered by its blind spots or mere rain, btw.

 

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. 

 

 

8 hours ago, LastButterfly said:

The range of a action of the SHIP. When would we talk of "action" for guns ? It's the maximum range at which your ship can operate from a friendly harbor.

 

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.

 

8 hours ago, LastButterfly said:

Yes, all guns have dispertion patterns. Some have worse than others. That didn't even cross your mind now did it ?

 

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.

 

 

8 hours ago, LastButterfly said:

but you are right. In combat, the most important is not the machinery output itself, it's the machinery's position within the ship and its ability to maintain the highest battle speed possible. Because believe it or not but an 8kn battleship still makes a better target than one steaming at 30kn.

 

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

 

8 hours ago, LastButterfly said:

Rudder armor 

 

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.

 

8 hours ago, LastButterfly said:

You basically rank BBs based on gun caliber, armor thickness, and the presence of a radar. Even within these categories, you're completely biased.

 

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. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
21 posts
2,590 battles
On 8/14/2019 at 12:14 PM, Drang_unconquerable said:

ignoring the fact Bismarck's armour did not protect her fire control cables

 

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. 

 

On 8/14/2019 at 12:14 PM, Drang_unconquerable said:

ignoring the fact that it was a belt penetration that crippled Scharnhorst

 

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. 

 

On 8/14/2019 at 12:14 PM, Drang_unconquerable said:

 believing a 300kg 11" shell with a 7kg bursting charge is just as good as an 800kg 15" shell with a 20kg bursting charge despite all physics telling us otherwise

 

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OMPG]
Beta Tester
146 posts
4,782 battles
10 hours ago, chickenpie65 said:

 

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. 

 

As we are in the historical section of this forum I will continue to nitpick. KGV was at the time in homefleet doing no operations of note. It was Duke of York that confronted Scharnhorst in late 1943.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×