How many carriers?

[Big]

To sum it up....A LOT

[fdewaele]

On the other hand... don't forget the performance of the CVE's during the battle of Leyte... they gave a very good account of themselves even sinking a couple of attacking cruisers...

[ChristopherPerrien]

Honestly fdewaele, I think it is more a matter of the Japanese giving a horrible account of themselves more than a good account by the American Jeep carriers and destroyers.

Personally I admire their(US Navy) actions but I really believe it was more the defeatist attitude of the Japanese commander and the failure of the Japanese to see the operation though. (they did that alot during the war starting with their half-ass attack on Pearl Harbor), that cost them a victory and defeat the American invasion of the Phillpines.

[Tiornu]

"I doubt all the other navies in the world could have matched the US fleet." The US surface fleet at war's end was not simply superior to the rest of the world's amassed surface strength--it was utterly dominating. The only functioning non-US carriers were British. Competent designs, these were all nevertheless inferior to their American counterparts in quality (talking about the fleet units, not the American-made CVEs.) and quantity. America had ten modern battleships as opposed to seven for the rest of the world, and of these, only Richelieu might be seen as equal to the American ships in a fight. America's older battleships were generally superior to the competition, with West Virginia, Tennessee, and California being the virtual equals of modern ships in all ways except speed.
Rather than drone on about cruisers and destroyers, I'll finish off by noting that American ships tended also to be in a better state of repair. Britain's longer war had left many ships badly worn.

[Andy H]

Though I agree with much of what you have stated you seemed to have forgotten about HMS Vanguard, which was certainly as good as any other BB around at the time.

Andy H

[Tiornu]

I did not include Vanguard or Jean Bart because they were not complete at war's end. (I did toy with the idea of mentioning "seven and a half battleships.)
Vanguard was a fine design. In a fight, she suffered from a slight lack of Oomph--her broadside was less than a KGV's. American battleships were firing 24,300 lbs per broadside; Vanguard had 15,504 lbs. Perhaps more important was the lack of range. Vanguard was equipped to handle British super-charge propellants, but its doubtful she ever shipped them. Her strongsuits included superior seakeeping and good armor for her vitals.

[Sam H.]

Her strongsuits included superior seakeeping and good armor for her vitals.

I recall reading of the Vanguard and one of the Iowa's fighting their way through some rough seas. While the Iowa class ship was rocking heavily, Vanguard was plowing through without any trouble.

How long did Britian manage to keep Vanguard active after the war? Were there any sister ships that were completed?

[Andy H]

Tiornu wrote:

I did not include Vanguard or Jean Bart because they were not complete at war's end. (I did toy with the idea of mentioning "seven and a half battleships.)

I believe that Vanguard had a gun range of some 36,500yds which I think is around Iowa's max range?

http://battleshiphmsvanguard.homestead.com/Content.html

The above link tells you all you need to know ad more

Andy H

[fdewaele]

How long did Britian manage to keep Vanguard active after the war? Were there any sister ships that were completed?

Laid Oct.2/41
Launched Nov.30/44
Commisioned Aug.9/46
training ship 1949
Royal Yacht
DECOM 1954
sold for scrap Aug.9/60

Vanguard was a stand alone ship.

There were however planes to have a successor class to the KGV. The Lion class was designed as an enlarged and more powerul KGV class of ships. These would have been on par with the U.S. Iowa class in firepower and ahead in protection. Of the 4 ships planned, two ships were laid in June/July 1939, work was suspended in october 1940 and the hulls were scrapped in 1943.

[Tiornu]

Vanguard had a normal gun range of 33,550 yards. Super-charges could increase that to 37,870 yards, give or take. The ship would have had a limited number of super-charges but perhaps enough to span the time when a fight remained beyond 33,000 yards. Iowa's gun range was 42,345 yards.
Vanguard was a superior seaboat. Iowa had good seakeeping but tended to be wet.
The reason for Vanguard's existance was that someone realized that a battleship could be built with relative ease if she carried recycled guns. There happened to be enough 15in guns lying around to equip one ship, and so it was done.
If you like what-if's, you can keep in mind that there were plenty of 13.5in guns lying around as well.
Lion was a very good design--superior in a fight to either Bismarck or Littorio, but on about the same tonnage. I would not say she was on a par with any modern US ship due to her lesser (but good) broadside and lack of RPC for her main battery. The protection for her vitals was good, but her overall armor scheme was not better than SoDak's or Iowa's (conning tower, turret roofs, steering armor).

[Windward]

A splendid ship design with recycled turrets and guns... Errrrr...It's a shame for this mighty battleship to be used as a royal yacht. And I agree that Vangard was a good design, but I think its superstructure was too large, and how could the bridge keep safe in a battle?

Montana class might be better than Iowa in heavy seas.

[ChristopherPerrien]

http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm



Battleship comparision , with all kinds of links also

[Windward]

If you like what-if's, you can keep in mind that there were plenty of 13.5in guns lying around as well.

I think most of them were equiped in shore batteries. What about those 18" guns?

[Andy H]

The projected specs for HMS Lion as per 1942 were as follows:-

Length 810ft
Weight (Full) 56,500tons
Speed 29 1/2kts
Arnament 9-16in, 16-5.25in, 8x8pp and 24-20mm
Armour 15ins on the side 7 5-6in on the deck
Shell weight of the 16in was 2375lbs

Andy H

[Tiornu]

I may be mistaken, but I think only one 18in gun remained in existence after 1933 (of only three that had been made) and no turret equipment for it. Vanguard, strictly speaking, recycled not only the 15in guns, but their turrets as well.
At least five 13.5in turrets remained extant in 1939, plus three more aboard old Iron Duke. One of my favorite daydreams is a variant Washington Treaty which protects Tiger at the expense of one of the "R's." Maybe it's just the novelty that attracts me, but I can't help thinking Tiger (with a Renown-type rebuild) would have been more useful in WWII than another "R." Many people disagree, and I can't blame them. By 1939, depending on 5in belt armor to keep shells out of your magazines was not that popular.
Lion's 16in shells show basically the same proportional weight as the 1938-lb 15in shell. This augurs well for Lion. On the other hand, many of the same issues that hampered KGV's guns may have recurred in Lion. For that matter, I can't say that Vanguard was free of turret issues. I have several questions about the degree of readiness achieved by Vanguard during her ambivalent career. Much of her time was spent with only two secondary mounts operational.