Top Ten Fighting Ships

[FlyingCanOpener]

Just got finished snickerin...er watching the Military Channel's "Top Ten Fighting Ships." It's in the same format as the one on tanks that crops up in the AFV forum every once in a while. Considering there were no submarines, I guess they limited themselves to surface ships

 

So without further ado...

 

10- Hood-class BBs (HMS Hood to be exact)

9- Deutschland-class Panzerschiffes

8- Essex-class CVs

7- Bismarck-class BBs

6- North Carolina-class BBs

5- Fletcher-class DDs

4- Ticonderoga-class CGs

3- Queen Elizabeth-class BBs

2- Nimitz-class CVNs

 

and *surprise*

 

1- Iowa-class BBs

 

Despite having a category for "Innovation," there was no HMS Dreadnought, USS Langley, nor USS Long Beach, and despite having a category for firepower, the IJN Yamato, the Soviet "battlecruiser" Kirov, or the USS Alaska didn't make the list.

 

After tossing out the Hood, the Panzerschiffes, the Bismarcks, and dropping the Iowas for being overrated, and the North Carolinas and Fletchers to make room for true innovators, and realizing this is all incredibly subjective my Top 10 would look like this:

 

10- Iowa-class BBs (Balance)

9- Yamato-class BBs (Penultimate BB design, IMO, though not the best BB, IMO)

8- Long Beach-class CGN (Innovation)

7- Enterprise-class CVN (Innovation)

6- Queen Elizabeth-class BBs (Innovation+performance)

5- Kirov-class BCs (Firepower)

4- Flower-class FFL (performance)

3- Hosho-class CV (Innovation)

2- Dreadnought-class BBs (Innovation+Firepower)

1- Essex-class CV (performance+innovation)

 

Of course, talking about Commie ships or omitting Nazis doesn't make good ratings, so I guess that's the best they could do.

 

[edit] I just noticed a formatting error

Edited January 5, 2006 by FlyingCanOpener

[larrikin]

It's a very limited list. What about HMS Warrior, which could have, given it was kept supplied in food, fuel and ammo, sunk every navy in the world in her day, by herself. Now that is a fighting ship.

[FlyingCanOpener]

It's a very limited list.  What about HMS Warrior, which could have, given it was kept supplied in food, fuel and ammo, sunk every navy in the world in her day, by herself.  Now that is a fighting ship.

264885[/snapback]

 

They limited the list to 20th century ships. Guess I should have mentioned that

[larrikin]

They limited the list to 20th century ships. Guess I should have mentioned that 

264887[/snapback]

 

In that case you should swap the Dread with the Essex. The Essex didn't make every other capital ship in existence, at the best, obsolescent in one fell swoop.

[FlyingCanOpener]

In that case you should swap the Dread with the Essex.  The Essex didn't make every other capital ship in existence, at the best, obsolescent in one fell swoop.

264890[/snapback]

 

Fair enough. I put the Essex ahead by a nose because of its wartime performance, but whereas the Essexs won a war, Dreadnought caused a war.*

 

*I know it didn't actually cause a war, but the naval race didn't help affairs.

[Kding]

The naval race was coming in any case. Both Japan and the USA were building their own all big gun BBs, IIRC. The UK just finished theirs first.

[larrikin]

The naval race was coming in any case. Both Japan and the USA were building their own all big gun BBs, IIRC.  The UK just finished theirs first.

264901[/snapback]

 

It wasn't just the all big gun concept, it was also the first capital ship with turbine engines rather than reciprocating, and improved fire control. Neither of it's two rivals on the slips had either of those. It could not only lay more firepower down than any of it's predecessors, it could well and truly out run them, out range them (miles travelled wise), and out shoot them. The US and Japanese designs were merely evolutionary, Dreadnaught was revolutionary.

[Guest pfcem]

After tossing out the Hood, the Panzerschiffes, the Bismarcks, and dropping the Iowas for being overrated, and the North Carolinas and Fletchers to make room for true innovators, and realizing this is all incredibly subjective my Top 10 would look like this:

 

10-  Iowa-class BBs (Balance)

9- Yamato-class BBs (Penultimate BB design, IMO, though not the best BB, IMO)

8- Long Beach-class CGN (Innovation)

7- Enterprise-class CVN (Innovation)

6- Queen Elizabeth-class BBs (Innovation+performance)

5- Kirov-class BCs (Firepower)

4- Flower-class FFL (performance)

3- Hosho-class CV (Innovation)

2- Dreadnought-class BBs (Innovation+Firepower)

1- Essex-class CV (performance+innovation)

 

Of course, talking about Commie ships or omitting Nazis doesn't make good ratings, so I guess that's the best they could do.

264881[/snapback]

Iowas overrated? Try reading these, as I assume you haven't because if you had, you would not say that the Iowas are overrated (not that I think they should be #1).

 

http://www.peachmountain.com/5star/Other_T...#BestBattleship

 

http://www.chuckhawks.com/post_treaty_battleships.htm

 

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

 

How could you drop the Ticonderoga class CGs from the top 10. They introduced both the Aegis & Mk 41 VLS systems which have revolutionized modern naval warfare as we know it.

[Kding]

It wasn't just the all big gun concept, it was also the first capital ship with turbine engines rather than reciprocating, and improved fire control.  Neither of it's two rivals on the slips had either of those.  It could not only lay more firepower down than any of it's predecessors, it could well and truly out run them, out range them (miles travelled wise), and out shoot them.  The US and Japanese designs were merely evolutionary, Dreadnaught was revolutionary.

264922[/snapback]

 

 

Steam turbine propultion was on the way for battleships anyway, even if Dreadnoughts competitors on the ways didnt yet incorporate it. The Turbinia, a 'demonstrator' for steam turbine propulsion, was built in 1894. The first turbine powered warship, the destroyer sized HMS Viper, in 1899. The HMS Amethyst, the first turbine cruiser, in 1902. It seems to me that the step up to a turbine powered battleship in or around 1905 was due to happen.

 

Also, the Aki, a turbine powered version of the Satsuma, was laid down in March of 1906, just 5 months after Dreadnought was laid down, and 9 months before she was completed. I dont know if the inclusion of turbines in Aki was in reaction to Dreadnought, or had been planned on, though.

[philgollin]

For innovation

 

HMS Dreadnought

the Holland class subs

HMS Furious (as aircraft carrier)

USS Nautilus

 

 

For effect (representative)

 

Flower Class Corvettes

Type VII

US WW2 Fleet Subs

Nimitz Class

 

 

As "personalities"

 

Goeben

Hood

Bismarck

Enterprise (WW2)

[KingSargent]

Steam turbine propultion was on the way for battleships anyway, even if Dreadnoughts competitors on the ways didnt yet incorporate it.    The Turbinia, a 'demonstrator' for steam turbine propulsion, was built in 1894.  The first turbine powered warship, the destroyer sized HMS Viper, in 1899.  The HMS Amethyst, the first turbine cruiser, in 1902.  It seems to me that the step up to a turbine powered battleship in or around 1905 was due to happen.

 

Also, the Aki, a turbine powered version of the Satsuma, was laid down in March of 1906, just 5 months after Dreadnought was laid down, and 9 months before she was completed.  I dont know if the inclusion of turbines in Aki was in reaction to Dreadnought, or had been planned on, though.

264955[/snapback]

The last class of French pre-Dreadnoughts would have introduced the turbines (in a class of six, not a single trials piece) and were slightly more powerful than their contemporaries. Dreadnought was "first" only because of Fisher's "Build a battleship in a year" stunt - her nearly identical successors took the usual three years (which was still #1 at the time).

[Ken Estes]

No apparent order:

 

HMS Dreadnought - defines ship-of-line for century

USS Forrestal - apogee of CV, rest are incremental +

IJN Shokaku

Baltimore class CA apogee of arm. cruiser/CA + long service

Queen Elizabeth class BB - makes BC irrelevant + long service

US DE class - US better than Flower, a trawler rework

Iowa (BB61) class BB - apogee of BB

HMS Dido class CLAA - shifts cruiser trends to present day

RN 12-gun 6" CL - proved wiser than 15-gun competitors of 30s

the lowly torpedo boat of c.1900

 

...that was fun.

[FITZ]

Just got finished snickerin...er watching the Military Channel's "Top Ten Fighting Ships."  It's in the same format as the one on tanks that crops up in the AFV forum every once in a while. Considering there were no submarines, I guess they limited themselves to surface ships

 

So without further ado...

 

10- Hood-class BBs (HMS Hood to be exact[/i]

9-    Deutschland-class Panzerschiffes

8-    Essex-class CVs

7-    Bismarck-class BBs

6-    North Carolina-class BBs

5-    Fletcher-class DDs

4-    Ticonderoga-class CGs

3-    Queen Elizabeth-class BBs

2-    Nimitz-class CVNs

 

and *surprise*

 

1-    Iowa-class BBs

 

264881[/snapback]

 

1. The Iowa’s are EXTREMELY overrated. Yes they have a huge fan club – believe me I know - but in the end they were merely a natural evolution of an earlier design with the only major change being made possible by politics, not technology or innovation – freedom from treaty limits.

 

Already obsolete in their intended role when they entered service the Iowa’s served out their careers demoted to anti-aircraft escorts and fire support gunboats punctuated by frequent periods in reserve. Hardly the mighty ships of the line they were intended to be - blasting enemy fleets out of the water at will.

 

2. The Fletchers and the Essex class are really the only ships that deserve to be on that list. Both classes essentially carried the naval war in the Pacific. The Fletcher’s too were perhaps the first truly ideal destroyers. What other ship of the time combined so successfully a truly effective dual-purpose main battery and fire control system, heavy short-range AA (as many as ten director controlled 40mm guns and seven 20mm before a bigger increase with the anti-Kamikaze mods), ten torpedo tubes, a heavy ASW battery and what is without question the best machinery in the world at the time.

 

Mass production of the Essex class of course allowed the USN to take the war to the Japanese. The Essex class and the Fletchers have the distinction, unlike the Iowa’s, of having a measurable impact in the conflicts in which they were involved.

 

3. Dreadnought, in spite of her short career (11 years?) was absolutely innovative in all the ways described above and changed the procurement policies of all the major powers. She was even the only battleship to ever sink a submarine – though she accomplished nothing else militarily.

 

4. Why isn’t the Type XXI U-boat on this list?

[FlyingCanOpener]

4. Why isn’t the Type XXI U-boat on this list?

265025[/snapback]

 

Because the list was only about surface ships. Oh the can of worms if subs were included. I think the writers of the show's heads would explode!

[p620346]

"Baltimore class CA apogee of arm. cruiser/CA"

 

The SALEM/DES MOINES/NEWPORT NEWS were the height of heavy cruisers

[Redbeard]

My no. 1 would be HMS Invincible - the battlecruiser. Like Dreadnought she combined turbines with "all big guns" but where Dreadnought made the pre-dreadnought BB obsolete, which the British were superior in anyway, the Invincible overnight made the Armoured Cruiser (AC) obsolete. Before Invincible a growing number of foreign AC's (mainly French and Russian) had caused great concern in UK, as they presented a serious threat to British trade routes, and required huge resources to be countered with own AC's. With the Invincible the British at once had made huge foreign naval programmes a waste and had reduced their own cost in keeping naval supremacy. I can't think of any other ship appoaching that - USS Nautilus probably being closest.

 

I like USS Iowa, certainly som fine specs, except in one very important aspect - date of commission! When Iowa commissioned in 1943 the war had practically been won, and in all the decisive battles before that a rubber dinghy with a peashooter present would be worth more than a non present Iowa. Next you must also consider that Iowa was the only realised BB of her generation. If comparing to her real contemporaries like Lion II or H-class she is technically not so outstanding any longer, but of course still in the most important - being there!

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

[Jason]

I watched this show, as well as the other shows in this series (best bombers, best tanks) yesterday on the Military Channel as well.

 

They should have said "Top Ten Warships of the 20th Century" because they ignored MANY innovative warships.

 

Innovative? How about the Monitor? The Warrior? The galley? The ship of the line? The Dreadnought? The Furious (as a developmental carrier, not battlecruiser)?

 

I also found these shows amusing to say the least.

 

I've discovered it is best to watch the film footage with the TV on mute and Iron Maiden playing on the stereo. The film footage is great usually, but the commentary is horrible usually. On one of the shows, they were showing footage of an F-16 while calling it a MiG-29. At least they got the Su-27 right.

 

Who the hell edits those shows anyhow?

[Ken Estes]

"Baltimore class CA apogee of arm. cruiser/CA"

 

The SALEM/DES MOINES/NEWPORT NEWS were the height of heavy cruisers

265036[/snapback]

Merely a product improvement, adding new type 8" and enlarged dimensions. Balt reaches right balance in armor, speed, armement with far less materials. That's like saying the Worcesters were the best of the CL class. The last one is not necessarily the trendsetter.

[Ken Estes]

FCO, has there been a topic on the handsomest design by category, e.g. HMS Tiger or USS Alaska for BC, Forrest Sherman or Fr superdestroyers for DD, etc?

[FlyingCanOpener]

FCO, has there been a topic on the handsomest design by category, e.g. HMS Tiger or USS Alaska for BC, Forrest Sherman or Fr superdestroyers for DD, etc?

265053[/snapback]

 

Not that I know of. Perhaps in the past it's been brought up. In terms of looks, the Derfflingers get points from me, as do the Deutschlands for some reason. I think I have an unhealthy affection for them...

Edited January 1, 2006 by FlyingCanOpener

[Jason]

FCO, has there been a topic on the handsomest design by category, e.g. HMS Tiger or USS Alaska for BC, Forrest Sherman or Fr superdestroyers for DD, etc?

265053[/snapback]

I had done several aesthetics topics for warships, fighter planes, and tanks some time ago.

[Rick]

In no paticular order:

H.M.S. Dreadnought-for all the reasons listed by brighter people than me.

The L.S.T.-made amphibous assaults and resupply really possible.

The U.S.S. Bogue-set a standard in capibilities for C.V.E. I believe it was the long-

range naval anti-submarine patrol craft and the C.V.E. that was

the most responsible for winning the W.W.2 war in the Atlantic.

The first Flower class corvette--set another A.S.W. standard for a simple,

"reasonably effective" escort.

U.S.S. Lexington--proved the value of the large C.V. in naval warfare.

U.S.S. Fletcher--the prototype for the modern destroyer, as mentioned above.

U.S.S. Spruance--demonstrated the value of a basic hull that could accomodate

newer weapons systems and all of their electronics and still be

combat effective.

H.M.S Dido--for the reasons listed above. An acknowledgement that anti-air is

more important than anti-surface.

The first Liberty ship--set the standard for a mass-produced merchant ship that

could be built faster than they could be sunk. Not literally

but you get the idea.

U.S.S. North Carolina--once the propeller vibration problem was solved, the

prototype of the perfect non-carrieer attack vessel with

good anti-surface, anti-air, protection, speed and

endurance.

[bigfngun]

. Next you must also consider that Iowa was the only realised BB of her generation. If comparing to her real contemporaries like Lion II or H-class she is technically not so outstanding any longer, but of course still in the most important - being there!

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

265046[/snapback]

 

Hmmm? The H class and the Lion real contemporaries? I would consider the Montana class being the contemporaries of those ships. Aside from some conceptual designs, any realistically planned BB meeting a Montana would have a very bad day. 12 16"/50 guns plus a double armor belt and improved torpedo protection. The Montanas were design frozen around 1940. The US was just quick with producing new BBs. I don't think you can match a Lion or H up aginst a US BB without counting the Montanas.

[FITZ]

"Baltimore class CA apogee of arm. cruiser/CA"

 

The SALEM/DES MOINES/NEWPORT NEWS were the height of heavy cruisers

265036[/snapback]

 

But quite redundant by the time they appeared.

[Redbeard]

Hmmm?  The H class and the Lion real contemporaries?  I would consider the Montana class being the contemporaries of those ships.  Aside from some conceptual designs, any realistically planned BB meeting a Montana would have a very bad day. 12 16"/50 guns plus a double armor belt and improved torpedo protection.  The Montanas were design frozen around 1940.  The US was just quick with producing new BBs.  I don't think you can match a Lion or H up aginst a US BB without counting the Montanas.

265072[/snapback]

 

In my mind the contemporaries are:

 

KGV, NC, Vittorio Veneto, Yamato and to some degree Bismarck and Richelieu (but these two last had a kind of first generation in Dunkerqe and Scharnhorst).

 

Lion I, H and SoDak (Temeraire laid down 1st of June 39, SoDak on 5th of July 39, H on 15th of July 39)

 

Lion II and Iowa. Lion II never went beyond sketches, and Iowa was laid down in mid 1940, which is a bit early for a Lion II to follow, but had like Iowa two previous designs to build on. Had the two last Lion I's been laid down in 1940 as planned, I guess the Lion II's would have followed in 1941. Missouri and Wisconsin were laid down in january 41, Kentucky and Illinois in 44 and 45 respectively.

 

Vanguard is somewhere between Lion I and II in design apart from main armament. Vanguard was laid down in 1941.

 

I really know of no navy having made detailed 4th generation BB designs like the Montanas, but in many ways Montana was a design line of its own, like the Alaskas. Perhaps the German monsters with 80cm guns or the Japanese with 6 20" would be other representatives in this line. The British also made late war studies over what it required to build a battleship capable of surviving the airthreat (not at least bombs/missiles like the one that sank Roma) but found out that the deck armour needed really was prohibitive.

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard