WWIIwarships(split from morons who worhsip 3.Reich)

Dark Primus · Post by **Dark Primus** » 2002-10-25 10:17am

Then we also have the SBY

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2002-10-25 11:05am

Nice pics. The Yamato must've been a truly impressive sight, especially on her last voyage when the crew set those huge japanese flags.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2002-10-25 12:18pm

Well, yes, Space Battleship Yamato is cool, but the wet-navy Yamato is exceeded in coolness by other designs

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2002-10-25 03:36pm

Like ze imperial star destroyer I presume?

Also, what about the Bismarck? Anyone got any pics of that one?

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2002-10-25 03:43pm

the mighty DKM Bismarck at her final resting place

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2002-10-25 04:41pm

a front view

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2002-10-25 11:13pm

Bah. I can't give Bismarck any points for coolness, it's just not that good of a design.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2002-10-26 09:47pm

phongn wrote:Bah. I can't give Bismarck any points for coolness, it's just not that good of a design.

Shocking heresy! Specifics, please.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2002-10-26 10:06pm

Frank Hipper wrote:
phongn wrote:Bah. I can't give Bismarck any points for coolness, it's just not that good of a design.
Shocking heresy! Specifics, please.

Triple screw design
Poor air-defense suite
Putting critical parts between the two armor belts.
Radar knocked out by blast from main battery
Armor design inadequate for long-range combat
Poor torpedo defense

Icehawk · Post by **Icehawk** » 2002-10-26 10:30pm

Battlecruiser Scharnhorst looks pretty sweet and had a pretty good service record apart from its final mission when it was sank.

I also think the name is pretty cool. "Scharnhorst" Has a a nice rugged, powerfull ring to it.

Post by **Coyote** » 2002-10-26 10:47pm

phongn wrote:
Coyote wrote:B-26. Fast, handled like a fighter, and could mount .75mm guns ....
You mean 75mm, not 0.75mm

Oooh! Thanks! I totally missed that one...!

[howls at the moon in shame]...

starfury · Post by **starfury** » 2002-10-26 11:10pm

http://64.124.221.191/shimak_c.htm

this class of japanese super destoryers seem pretty cool as well

Oberleutnant · Post by **Oberleutnant** » 2002-10-27 10:39am

/shameless nationalism on

Okay now, don't laugh at this ship even if it's tiny compared to Yamato or Iowa. She and her sister ship were quite an accomplishment for a country with a population of 3,5 million.

Finnish Navy coast defence ship "Ilmarinen"

/shameless nationalism off

Surely I'm not the only one who thinks that WWII-era warships were helluva lot cooler than any modern vessel?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-10-27 10:54am

You're not the only one. The battleships, almost any battleship, have a look of gracce and power no carrier can match. The old gun fighters have got a don't fuck with me look that no other type of ship had.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2002-10-27 10:56am

phongn wrote:
Frank Hipper wrote:
phongn wrote:Bah. I can't give Bismarck any points for coolness, it's just not that good of a design.
Shocking heresy! Specifics, please.
Triple screw design
Poor air-defense suite
Putting critical parts between the two armor belts.
Radar knocked out by blast from main battery
Armor design inadequate for long-range combat
Poor torpedo defense

I was actually being facetious to a certain extant. But I think you overstated some and missed some others. Triple screw design? Ain`t nothing wrong with that. Bismarck had an excellent air defense suite for an early war-time ship. Heavy AA battery with multiple independant fire control stations. What two armour belts? Do tyou mean decks? German radar was nil to begin with. Her armour wasn`t all that poorly designed, it could have been better. Her most glaring faults, IMHO, were that her fire control was knocked out almost immediately in her last fight. She was a poor seaboat, very wet . She wasted displacement in having seperate low angle and high angle secondary batteries.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-10-27 11:00am

Oberleutnant wrote:/shameless nationalism on

Okay now, don't laugh at this ship even if it's tiny compared to Yamato or Iowa. She and her sister ship were quite an accomplishment for a country with a population of 3,5 million.

Finnish Navy coast defence ship "Ilmarinen"

/shameless nationalism off

Surely I'm not the only one who thinks that WWII-era warships were helluva lot cooler than any modern vessel?

She's pretty good, the most heavily armed artillery warship for the displacement ever.

Modern is cooler.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2002-10-27 11:13am

On a purely aesthetic note, how can you possibly prefer modern ships? Most lack any cohesion of form. For that matter, even WWII ships were lacking. Give me a nice clean WWI battleship or battlecruiser. A purity of form dictated by function moderated by the desire to intimidate by appearance! Giant killing machines belching clouds of black smoke, plowing the water with anachronistic ram bows.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-10-27 11:19am

Frank Hipper wrote:
phongn wrote:
Frank Hipper wrote:Shocking heresy! Specifics, please.
Triple screw design
Poor air-defense suite
Putting critical parts between the two armor belts.
Radar knocked out by blast from main battery
Armor design inadequate for long-range combat
Poor torpedo defense
I was actually being facetious to a certain extant. But I think you overstated some and missed some others. Triple screw design? Ain`t nothing wrong with that. Bismarck had an excellent air defense suite for an early war-time ship. Heavy AA battery with multiple independant fire control stations. What two armour belts? Do tyou mean decks? German radar was nil to begin with. Her armour wasn`t all that poorly designed, it could have been better. Her most glaring faults, IMHO, were that her fire control was knocked out almost immediately in her last fight. She was a poor seaboat, very wet . She wasted displacement in having seperate low angle and high angle secondary batteries.

Anit nothing wrong with triple screws? We'll not much besides being the worst possible combination that put to sea with.. It gives you inefficient power utilization, high noise and vibration levels. And made for some severe design problems with regard to interaction of the power train configuration with other parts of ship, such for main battery turrets to be in spaces needed for the shafts and engines.

Bismarck's 105mm suit was quite light compared most other heavy AA suit on a modern battleship. Her 37mm guns where semi automatic. The rate of fire was just 30 RPM and the performance of the gun wasn’t very good either. Her 20mm cannons where of a poor design and also fed from magazines holding just 20 rounds, reloading took up far more time then actually firing.

Bismarck's armor had a low belt, low main armor deck and was thin. It would have been ideal at Jutland, but was just awful for long-range engagements facing much heavier shells and horrible for facing aircraft bombs. The design defiantly could have been better, but beyond thinning it even more I'm not sure how the Germans could have done an even worse job. Designing a ship to fight a battle that ended decades before is not a good idea, and the result was crap.

The design also had the excellent concept of running the power, communications and hydraulic lines above the main armored deck, ensuring that even light cruiser shellfire could knock them out.
Her radar was actually quite useful, though not very impressive performance wise. Her first salvo knock out her forward set at Denmark straights.
She also had two main battery turrets knock out by one hit from a 16inch shell.

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2002-10-27 02:46pm

Oberleutnant wrote:/shameless nationalism on

Okay now, don't laugh at this ship even if it's tiny compared to Yamato or Iowa. She and her sister ship were quite an accomplishment for a country with a population of 3,5 million.

Finnish Navy coast defence ship "Ilmarinen"

/shameless nationalism off

Surely I'm not the only one who thinks that WWII-era warships were helluva lot cooler than any modern vessel?

Did she and her sister ship get to kick any Soviet ass?

KG

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2002-10-27 03:42pm

nasty little ship.
Out of the finnish ships, my favorite is this one:

Vetehinen class submarine, equipped with some features also found on the famous type VII U-Boat which was based on the UBIII class of WWI btw.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-10-27 04:10pm

Oberleutnant wrote:/shameless nationalism on

Okay now, don't laugh at this ship even if it's tiny compared to Yamato or Iowa. She and her sister ship were quite an accomplishment for a country with a population of 3,5 million.

Finnish Navy coast defence ship "Ilmarinen"

/shameless nationalism off

Hmm....

http://www.warships1.com/Finland_cruisers.htm

Ilmarinen
sunk Sep.13/41 by 2 mines in Northern Baltic.
Only 132 out of a total crew of 403 survived.

Väinämöinen
Given to the USSR Mar.3/47 as war reparations and renamed "Vyborg".
handed over Jun.5/47 at Turku
seen in 1960 at Leningrad by some Finnish officers looking very
much like her original shape
scrapped /68

Length(O/A)
305.1' (93 m) with ice breaker bow

Beam
55.5' (16.9 m)

Draft
14.9' (4.5 m)

Full Load
ca 4,000 tons

Standard
3,900 tons

Main Side Belt
50-55 mm Krupp C

Deck Armour (lower deck sloped)
20 mm Nickel Steel

Main artillery
100 mm front

Control Tower
120 mm

Armament
Main Gun
4 x 10"(254mm) /46cal Bofors guns in double towers fore and aft
( 50 degree max elevation )

Secondary Gun
8 x 105 mm Bofors in 4 twin mounts
outfitted originally with 2 x 102mm Obuhov

Heavy AA (WWII)
Original: 4 x 40mm/40 cal Vickers
Jun./41 changed to 4 x 40mm/60 cal Bofors (1 twin, 2 single mounts)

Light AA (WWII)
2 x 20mm/60 cal Madsen
increased to 8 by Sep./44

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-10-27 04:57pm

kheegan wrote:
Oberleutnant wrote:/shameless nationalism on

Okay now, don't laugh at this ship even if it's tiny compared to Yamato or Iowa. She and her sister ship were quite an accomplishment for a country with a population of 3,5 million.

[img]http://www.hut.fi/~jaromaa/Navygallery/ ... v2.jpg[img]

Finnish Navy coast defence ship "Ilmarinen"

/shameless nationalism off

Surely I'm not the only one who thinks that WWII-era warships were helluva lot cooler than any modern vessel?
Did she and her sister ship get to kick any Soviet ass?

KG

I'm not aware of any action in the Winter War, though Finnish shore batteries did hit several ships, though damage was slight. Course one Russian battleship while in a duel had and explosion in X turret, wiping it out and forcing the ship to withdraw to fight the fire.

However in 1941 when the Finnish joined the Axis attack on Russia both ships supported an invasion of the Aland islands in the Baltic. A Soviet battleship and two cruiser where in the area but withdrew without action to Leningrad, there they stayed for the rest of the war.

However during the landing on of the pair, Ilmarinen hit a mine and sank.

Later on they made a few shoots in support of invasions and counter invasion on various islands in the Gulf of Finland west of Leningrad. However the Soviets never sent out anything bigger then MTB's to fight, I dont belive the remaining ship ever saw action against signficant surface vessles.

Not suprising, the whole naval war in the Baltic 1941-45 had only one battle betwen destroyers and nothing with cruisers or larger.

As part of the peace 1944 deal Väinämöinen was handed over to the Soviet navy. They held onto her till the 60's when she was scrapped.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2002-10-27 04:59pm

Stormbringer wrote:You're not the only one. The battleships, almost any battleship, have a look of gracce and power no carrier can match. The old gun fighters have got a don't fuck with me look that no other type of ship had.

Bah, this ship has more grace then any battleship of the war.

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carrier ... /cv6-2.jpg

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-10-27 05:19pm

Alyeska wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:You're not the only one. The battleships, almost any battleship, have a look of gracce and power no carrier can match. The old gun fighters have got a don't fuck with me look that no other type of ship had.
Bah, this ship has more grace then any battleship of the war.

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carrier ... /cv6-2.jpg

I'll grant you she's good looking for a carrier but she can't compare to a good old fashioned battleship.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2002-10-27 08:21pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Alyeska wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:You're not the only one. The battleships, almost any battleship, have a look of gracce and power no carrier can match. The old gun fighters have got a don't fuck with me look that no other type of ship had.
Bah, this ship has more grace then any battleship of the war.

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carrier ... /cv6-2.jpg
I'll grant you she's good looking for a carrier but she can't compare to a good old fashioned battleship.

Bah. CV-6 gets props for he combat record. Besides, most battleships weren't that attractive, especially cage-masted American ones.