Top Ten Fighting Ships

[Ken Estes]

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...

265057[/snapback]

Hmm, yes, maybe you are a sick puppy; well, maybe we could look at pleasing loser designs!! Ken

[KingSargent]

Okay, I'm going to throw a curve ball and limit "warships" to those which actually went to war. Which lets the various USN atomic/AEGIS ships out, since AFAIK the only thing they've fought are airliners.

 

I suppose I have to include Dreadnought, since she actually met an enemy in combat - and 'met' is the operative word, since she sunk U-29 by ramming (and thereby avenged Aboukir, Hogue, and Cressy).

 

One 'ringer' would be the Casablanca class CVEs - not so much for what they accomplished (which was nothing to scorn) as for demonstrating what US industry could do. Who else even thought of building FIFTY carriers in one day over a year?

 

Then the Essexes, the ne plus ultra of CVs that actually saw naval (as opposed to ground support and strike) service. Good enough to serve many years post-war (isn't one still a training carrier?) - although that is probably because they were 'there'.*

For good-looking CVs, I like IJN Soryu. OK, I'm wierd....

 

A little (OK, a lot) chauvinistic, but my favorite WW2 BB is Washington. Winner of one of the last "BB Ambushes BB" actions, and one of the best-looking USN ships (which are mostly clumsy lumps IMHO).

 

The prettiest DDs would have to be the RN's "J-K- -N" classes. Really handsome. No slouches in action either. Soviet Tashkent is #2 for looks.

 

Since most BBs were built during or for WW1, there are several "pretties": The already mentioned Derfflingers are in contention, at least before they added the ugly tripods. HMS Tiger was (to quote Jane's) "a remarkably handsome ship before the present hideous rig was adopted."

 

Hood was a handsome ship. HMS Erin was good-looking.

 

I think the IJN's Mikasa should get a vote, just for being Togo's flagship in several actions including the most decisive (in tactical terms) major surface battle in history. If she didn't fire her guns at enemy BBs more times during the 20th Century than anybody, I don't know who did.

 

'Nuffernow.

 

 

* I am against "rebuilds" that attempt to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The money for "modernization" usually equals the cost of a new ship, but you can't convince Holders Of The Public Purse Strings of that.

[FITZ]

Okay, I'm going to throw a curve ball and limit "warships" to those which actually went to war. Which lets the various USN atomic/AEGIS ships out, since AFAIK the only thing they've fought are airliners.

 

Aegis equipped vessels have been involved in just about every U.S. combat action since 1983. Now if you want to unfairly narrow your definition of what Aegis does to just shooting SAM's then maybe you have an argument but many would argue that is way down the list of what Aegis brings to the table.

 

I suppose I have to include Dreadnought, since she actually met an enemy in combat - and 'met' is the operative word, since she sunk U-29 by ramming (and thereby avenged Aboukir, Hogue, and Cressy).

 

Dreadnought did see combat service, but deserves to be included because of the dramatic changes her appearance inspired worldwide. It is hard to name another ship that had such an impact in its time.

 

One 'ringer' would be the Casablanca class CVEs - not so much for what they accomplished (which was nothing to scorn) as for demonstrating what US industry could do. Who else even thought of building FIFTY carriers in one day over a year?

 

You could substitute a lot of ship types here for the same effect.

 

265111[/snapback]

Edited January 1, 2006 by FITZ

[FlyingCanOpener]

You only have 9 selections King...

 

As for some of the other selections people have made, why did you choose Invincible Redbeard? If anything, Hood, Repulse*, Indefatigable, Queen Mary, and ironically Invincible being all lost in combat is kind of a large mark against it.

 

*Lost not to surface fire, but to aircraft

[Guest aevans]

FCO:

 

I'd have to downcheck the Long Beach, because even though it was technically innovative, nuclear power for strike/escort surface warfare ships was a developmental dead end.

 

However...

 

King:

 

Long Beach had two Talos kills against North Vietnamese fighters in May, 1968. These are reputed to be the first naval SAM kills in history.

[Redbeard]

You only have 9 selections King...

 

As for some of the other selections people have made, why did you choose Invincible Redbeard? If anything, Hood, Repulse*, Indefatigable, Queen Mary, and ironically Invincible being all lost in combat is kind of a large mark against it.

 

*Lost not to surface fire, but to aircraft

265122[/snapback]

 

 

Invincible was designed to fight pre-dread AC's and did so suberbly - Falkland being the real life example. At Jutland she met ships at least one generation newer but her and the other RN BC's biggest problem was not the rather skinny armour, but the incautious way cordite charges were handled in the BCS. In order to keep high RoF (a Beattie folly) charges were kept in large numbers outside the magazines. This meant that practically any hit would start cordite fires. While this could be serious for the single turret and its crew the main problem was that the magazine interlocks were also kept open to speed up firing, and the magazines themselves therefore in high risk of kabooming - taking the whole ship with it. RN charges being kept in silk bags and being rather volatile from the start didn't help either.

 

Invincible and Indefatigable were however by 1916 highly in the risk of taking a penetrating hit into the magazine, but that could of course not be a reason to leave them out of battle. Nobody expected destroyers or CL's to stay away because they were vulnerable!

 

Apart from the cordite problems the fate of BC's in general probably expresses first of all that they were usually where the action was. Their extra speed and large hulls made them very versatile ships and with great potential for modernisations. The slow BB probably lost its real value decades before the BC and the BC/fast BB didn't get obsolete because of inadequate protection (which still was better than anything else afloat) but because other shiptypes became more effective in fighting the enemy.

 

The ideal warship of Admiral Fisher, the father of BC's - probably would had been the Essex class CV.

 

http://www.bobhenneman.info/Idealnew.htm

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

[FlyingCanOpener]

Hmm, found what I was looking for...

 

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=2111

 

Before we go a-duking it out about battlecruisers again. Though I agree with the concept, but as was the case in the ever-changing world of naval technology then, can we rate a ship that high when its time "at the top" (I use quotes because I'm more supportative of Dreadnought/Essex than Invincible) was rather short and it became quite vulnerable because its for was sent out to pasture because of its obsolesence?

[Argus]

You only have 9 selections King...

 

As for some of the other selections people have made, why did you choose Invincible Redbeard? If anything, Hood, Repulse*, Indefatigable, Queen Mary, and ironically Invincible being all lost in combat is kind of a large mark against it.

265122[/snapback]

 

Why is being lost in action a disqualification? Sorry but that seems like an utterly silly limitation to me. Are we going to disqualify the QE's because Barham was sunk? There's not many classes out there that have seen combat but never lost a ship.

 

I don't get peoples beef with Dreadnaught either, I mean yes, turbines were coming, all big gun was coming, director control was coming, all the trends were there before Fisher had a rush of blood to the head. But one ship had to be first to combine them and that was Drednaught. I see her as sort of like the anti-Iowa. As respectively the first and last of the line there's no real contempoaries to compare them against.

 

shane

[FlyingCanOpener]

Why is being lost in action a disqualification? Sorry but that seems like an utterly silly limitation to me. Are we going to disqualify the QE's because Barham was sunk? There's not many classes out there that have seen combat but never lost a ship.

265154[/snapback]

 

It isn't silly when Fisher's mantra of "speed over armour" was proven to be lacking in actual combat. Now, one could argue that they weren't being the used the way Fisher intended, but, if you can only beat up on lessers, and take a beating even against your equals (Jutland, especially Queen Mary and Invincible; and Dogger Bank, with Blücher), can you put it at Number 1 on a list of "Top 10 Surface Ships?"

[KingSargent]

The ideal warship of Admiral Fisher, the father of BC's - probably would had been the Essex class CV.

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

265142[/snapback]

Escorted, no doubt, by that rather atrocious diesel-engined BC armed with 6x20" guns he proposed....

 

Back to my infamous CVE fetish....

 

If I got transferred back to the 1930s (and assuming I didn't die without Modern Medicine {and knowing what I know now - or rather a prescient selection of contemporary ideas}):

 

1. Advise FDR to develop prototypes of classes of easily mass-produceable CVEs [and airplanes to fit] and escorts. Given a Sangamon type CVE, the same hull could mount scads of AA and FDR and act as flag for a division of CVEs, with 2-4 DE types/CVE. The CVEs and big AA escort/flag could refuel smaller escorts and stay at sea for a long time.

 

2. Older BBs could be given a modernization incorporating tons of AA and modern FC - and have a huge gun platform in case any surface vessel managed to sneak into range.

 

3. Execute staff at the Naval Torpedo Factory and get an effective torpedo.

 

4. Use Ranger and Wasp as scout-observation and CAP carriers for the new "post-Treaty" BBs (the CVEs not used in 1-2 could do the same for the old slow BBs), and use the 'Newport News' class (CV5,6, &8) and follow-ons (Essexes historically) covered by CAs as the FCVTFs.

[gewing]

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]

 

 

I have always thought that 12 16" 50 guns with the fire control we had at the end of the war would have been impressive. Other than that, I really don't know much about the Montana class. What were the improvements in the armor?

 

Any links to the Lion or H class designs, since they clearly weren't built?

[FlyingCanOpener]

Any links to the Lion or H class designs, since they clearly weren't built?

265187[/snapback]

 

"H" and Lion-classes: http://www.chuckhawks.com/super_battleships_projected.htm

[gnocci]

No Komars?

[JOE BRENNAN]

I'd look for either trendsetting changes in direction, or ultimate embodiment of concepts when those concepts were still critically relevant. Not in rank order

 

1. Dreadnought: a one ship list would have to be it, I think

2. Kirov: you could debate if a dead end, but a bold departure

3. First carrier: fill in your preference of ersatz WWI Brit ones or 1920's US, J, Brit

4. Essex class: overall superiority of the system (electronics, AA defense, Hellcat units) as well as concept of the ship for the war winning role of the WWII carrier (different and more important concept in the outcome of the war than RN one, and a better execution than IJN system overall).

5. Forrestal class: I think carriers are worth 3 entries.

6. First practical SAM ship: I like the Albany conversions, semi-arbitrarily

7. Ticonderoga: culmination of that trend, which started as response to the Kamikaze and is a lot of what 21st century surface ships are about

8. England: meaning the DE which sank 6 IJN subs as symbol of the concept of WW's ASW ship in that most important anti-sub campaign, even though the DE's arrived late. The problem with Flowers is lack of speed against night surface tactics that cost a lot of merchant tonnage, same problem with the Kaibokan. If Brit oriented, substitute one of their later more successful classes. DE's can also stand for the US WWII warship building mobilization

9. Warspite: my compromise choice for "full embodiment" of the dreadnoght when it was still really important (QE class chararcteristics plus W's particular career in both WW's); I'm not convinced any post Treaty BB was all that important. Jellicoe could still "lose the war in an afternoon" when ships like Warspite were state of art. If rabidly pro-US (all or nothing protection, heavier decks etc.) substitute WV's.

10. Kagero class: (or later Yugumo's) culmination of late 19th century concept of the DD as night surface killer. Fletchers were stronger as ASW ships but not optimal for that, better AA ships but that's partly covered under Essex (superiority of the 5"/38, Mk. 37 director, VT fuze combination of early '43 onward to any other navy's WWII heavy AA systems), ultimately probably better at night surface (when acting without more visible cruisers) because of SG, electronics covered by Essex

 

Joe

[bigfngun]

I have always thought that 12 16" 50 guns with the fire control we had at the end of the war would have been impressive.  Other than that, I really don't know much about the Montana class.  What were the improvements in the armor?

 

Any links to the Lion or H class designs, since they clearly weren't built?

265187[/snapback]

 

For the Montanas:http://warships1.com/US/USbb67-Montana.htm

 

If I get off my lazy butt I'll look up my Garzke&Dulin BB books and the Friedman book on US BBdesign.

[Argus]

It isn't silly when Fisher's mantra of "speed over armour" was proven to be lacking in actual combat. Now, one could argue that they weren't being the used the way Fisher intended, but, if you can only beat up on lessers, and take a beating even against your equals (Jutland, especially Queen Mary and Invincible; and Dogger Bank, with Blücher), can you put it at Number 1 on a list of "Top 10 Surface Ships?"

265156[/snapback]

 

I'm not calling your specific case with the BC's 'silly', just the general principal that loseing ships is a disqualification for a class.

 

Although I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at, by the passage high lighted above, it seems like you're looking for a fair fight... From Jackie "Moderation in war is imbercility' Fisher????

 

"only beat up on lessers" was the whole ruddy idea, the classical conception of the BC was as a big bully, like the US Superfirgates of the age of sail, or the Pocket Battleships of 30's. The attributes were speed, firepower and RANGE, the ability to duck down to the Falklands and smack some bottie then nip back home in time for tea.

 

Leaving asside Beatties 'issues,' cordite, flash tightness and all that stuff. The KM concept of a BC was a light fast Drednought, or in Blucher a super heavy AC, but in neither case was the result an 'equal' to a BC in the RN/IJN mould.

 

I'm not knocking the German's here, or boosting the RN, they were just two diferent type of ship that happened to be simmilar and shared the same lable. There's no way you could expect a ship designed to operate globaly with all the compromises in habitability and sea keeping and range that required, to be comparable in a slug fest with the sort of short range bruiser the Germans built under the same lable.

 

Now I'm not saying this was 'unfair' of the Germans to build ships the way they did, far from it, they won that particular corner of the contest. But it doens't invalidate the RN's BC concept either. I've mentioned the Falklands already but HMAS Australia is an even better example. Spee faced three battles, the Falklands, Coronel and the one he never fought that lead to the two he did. Spee avoided the Australia Station like the plague simply because there was a BC there and HMAS Australia's presence won that fight without ever fring a shot.

 

So to get back to the question, did the RN BC's have a signifigant impact on naval strategy and WWI? I'd say they did. Pre-1914 the one card every navy expected to use against Britian to some extant, was the gurre course (sp?). Turning the cruisers, like frigates of old, loose on Britain's Merchant Marine to strangle Imperial trade. But it was the one that fizzled, Emden being the exception that proved the rule. To get at UK trade the Germans had to use Merchant Raiders and Submarines, because the BC killed the concept of a cruiser war stone dead.

 

This is just MHO, but to me the only reason the Germans tried warship raiding in WWII was because the BC was almost extinct. If the RN had five R class BC's* in the 1930's rather than R class BB's Reader never have even tried it.

 

Note I'm not saying the RN should have had five Renown's or that the classic BC was a perfect concept. Once they became tied to the battle line it was all over and the fast battleship was inevitable. But as a type they were not all bad either, and within their nich the type was so successful it largely did itself out of a job.

 

That they were sunk wholesale in 1916 tends to overshaddow the point that by then their primary purpose had been fulfilled. The 'Cruiser War' was over by 1915 and the BC had won hansomly.

 

I certainly agree that the big CV would have been Jackies ideal warship.

 

shane

 

.* Edit, I probably should have specified Hood's here, but Refit and Repair do almost as well.

Edited January 2, 2006 by Argus

[FlyingCanOpener]

Although I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at, by the passage high lighted above, it seems like you're looking for a fair fight... From Jackie "Moderation in war is imbercility' Fisher????

265247[/snapback]

 

What I meant by that was that "greatness" (a relative term) for a near-capital ship in combat can't be made by merely snacking on lesser ships, and then being chewed up by ships of equal armament. (In Invincible's case, the German counter-BCs, their own battlecruisers.)

[larrikin]

What I meant by that was that "greatness" (a relative term) for a near-capital ship in combat can't be made by merely snacking on lesser ships, and then being chewed up by ships of equal armament. (In Invincible's case, the German counter-BCs, their own battlecruisers.)

265249[/snapback]

 

Both classes of 'I's were originally classed as ACs, specifically as Dreadnaught ACs, not battlecruisers. They were reclassified for political reasons. The real BCs the RN had were the Magnificent Cats.

 

The 'I's were intended, designed, and built, to kill ACs, to penetrate enemy fleet screens, and to prevent the enemy from penetrating the RN's screen. As far as I can see they did their job to perfection. By 1916 they were obsolescent, but still capable of doing the job they were designed for. In effect they were actually the same class, as the Indefatigables were only a very limited redesign of the Invincibles, being as close to them as Tiger was to Lion. The Indefatigables were, pound per ton, the cheapest capital ships ever built, IF you insist on regarding them as capital ships. But that's not what they were, they were Foreign Station flagships and cruiser killers, they just happened to be up there in the dreadnaught size range because of their operational requirements.

 

As an interesting comparison, the closest thing in concept to the 'I's that the USN built in the C20th were the Alaskas, a class they that they were insistent on categorising as CB, not as BC. The ob of the Alaskas was killing cruisers and providing fleet screen, yet in many ways it wasn't as capable (in comparative terms) as the 'I's, lacking AA firepower in comparison to its CC contemporaries, and not having a TDS, thus making it more vulnerable to its contemporary threats than the 'I's were to theirs.

 

In fact, while the 'I's got involved in a full blown fleet action and some actually survived it, I very much doubt that the very expensive Alaskas could have done the same thing.

[EchoFiveMike]

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]

 

 

Huh? The recip was more fuel efficient than the turbine and South Carolina had centerline superfiring guns, giving her the same firepower as Dreadnought on less weight. In the long run, centerline superfiring guns were a greater advantage than turbines, witness that US kept recips until Nevada but never tried anything but centerline guns after SC. S/F....Ken M

[Argus]

E5M

 

Generally Concur.

 

But, recips lost out in reliability over long high speed runs. An ungeared turbine might run through its bunkers quicker, but the rescip couldn't count on geting to the end of its fuel reliably. So provided you could live with the fuel ecconomy the turbine was still the better option.

 

You're spot on with the I's.

 

shane

[Guest aevans]

10. Kagero class: (or later Yugumo's) culmination of late 19th century concept of the DD as night surface killer. Fletchers were stronger as ASW ships but not optimal for that, better AA ships but that's partly covered under Essex (superiority of the 5"/38, Mk. 37 director, VT fuze combination of early '43 onward to any other navy's WWII heavy AA systems), ultimately probably better at night surface (when acting without more visible cruisers) because of SG, electronics covered by Essex

 

Joe

265196[/snapback]

 

But that begs the question of whether or not a ship optimized for night torpedo attacks was a developmental dead end. I think that combat experience shows that it was. Certainly it took radar and a doctrine for its efficient use to close off that line of development -- but those things did happen. The Fletchers, OTOH, were better balanced. For example, that integrated gun director system gave the Fletchers a superiority in the naval gunfire support role. Also, they were faster and longer ranged than the Kageros or even the Yugumos. IOW the Kagero/Yugumo may have been the apotheosis of the ocean-going torpedo boat, but being the best of a doomed breed isn't that much of a distinction.

[Ken Estes]

Aegis equipped vessels have been involved in just about every U.S. combat action since 1983.  Now if you want to unfairly narrow your definition of what Aegis does to just shooting SAM's then maybe you have an argument but many would argue that is way down the list of what Aegis brings to the table.

265111[/snapback]

265119[/snapback]

That was a curious one, as King had it right. Is it really a combat action when the USN ship fires but nobody fires back? Ignoring the pursuit of Boghammers in the Gulf, one has to go back to engaging Vietnamese shore batteries for the last combat action by USN ships in which the other side fired back, repeated seldom in Korea...then it's back to 1945.

 

The USN and USAF talk battlefield domination in budget wars, but outside of a few of their SOF components [and USN corpsmen], it is the army and USMC engaging in combat these days.

 

Of course 'being involved in' could be taken as 'was a bystander while' and then it does work, I guess.

[Guest aevans]

That was a curious one, as King had it right. Is it really a combat action when the USN ship fires but nobody fires back? Ignoring the pursuit of Boghammers in the Gulf, one has to go back to engaging Vietnamese shore batteries for the last combat action by USN ships in which the other side fired back, repeated seldom in Korea...then it's back to 1945.

 

The USN and USAF talk battlefield domination in budget wars, but outside of a few of their SOF components [and USN corpsmen], it is the army and USMC engaging in combat these days.

 

Of course 'being involved in' could be taken as 'was a bystander while' and then it does work, I guess.

265316[/snapback]

 

I suppose the RN was a useless waste of money between 1814 and 1914...

[Ken Estes]

I suppose the RN was a useless waste of money between 1814 and 1914...

265319[/snapback]

Why? Do you think it was not in action?

[Scott Cunningham]

Here are a few ships I thing would be termed "excellent" based on how good they were compared to comparable ships of their day. It has almost one ship per type (with an extra BB and Carrier class from different eras).

 

Fletcher Class DD's

Queen Elizabeth Class BC's

Iowa Class BB's

Tone Class Cruisers

Essex Class Carriers

Polaris SSGN's

Dreadnought (or the technologically more advanced US South Carolina Class)

Kaiser Liberty Ships

Nimitz Class CVN

German Type XXI U-Boats