Top Ten Fighting Ships

[gewing]

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

265333[/snapback]

 

 

 

In some ways, I would almost say the Polaris subs were the #1. Or maybe the tridents.

 

Nothing supposedly can really touch them, and a single one could hold the rest of the world hostage.

 

scary thought.

[FITZ]

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.

 

265316[/snapback]

 

 

On 18 February 1991 USS Princeton (CG-47) class was acting as the anti-air warfare commander for the entire northern Persian Gulf tracking and identifying aircraft over the Gulf, Kuwait, southern Iraq and Iran to ID the bad guys and prevent blue-on-blue. Earlier she was the flagship for a force that sank or disabled 6 Iraqi warships using missile armed helicopters.

 

At 0716 she passed over an Italian- built, Iraqi laid Manta mine in 11 fathoms of water which exploded just forward of Mount 52 aft causing widespread structural damage.

 

Does that count for you as "being attacked"?

 

Do I have to mention USS Cole? She was an Aegis ship and most certainly attacked.

 

And why would you ignore Vincennes persuit of the Iraniam Boghammers? That was a combat action yes? Vincennes fired 72 rounds of 5-inch ammunition at them so they were not kidding around! The Iranian boats reportedly did return fire. They had previously fired on a USN helicopter and were reported as forming to attack merchant shipping. Is that unworthy in your view?

 

How about all the times the CG-47's have been used on strike warfare missions (which is one of the things they do)? That doesn't count?

 

I think I see the issuehere. You see Aegis as a SAM shooting system when that is, as I said earlier, just a very small part of what the Aegis system really brings to the table. Aegis is a Battle Management System - an information system as much as a combat and weapon assignment and control system. It is hard to stress just how important Aegis was and is to the USN. For the first time since 1944 the USN had actually solved the air defense and air control problem! That is no understatement.

 

Perhaps it would be helpful to submit this account, From Capt Potter's "Electronic Greyhounds" of CG-47's Ticonderoga's first deployment. Remember that at this time (1983) many thought Aegis not just grossly overpriced, but they didn't think it even worked!

 

"Arriving off Lebanon shortly after the Marine barracks bombing, she was at first stationed so far offshore that Beirut was beyond the SPY-1A radars surface range. Her stock began to rise when other ships, aircraft and unit commanders noticed the volume and quality of information she was reporting to them over the datalinks. Ticonderoga was brought further in and soon became responsible for detecting and tracking all surface and air traffic in the area. She patrolled 30-50nm off the coast. Her combat systems officer wrote this account of her contribution:

 

The Ticonderoga's patrols permitted Aegis/SM-2 coverage of the American Embassy, Beirut Airport, and the amphibious group. Amphibious warfare ships routinely carried out night steaming operations close to the Ticonderoga before moving shorward for daylight cargo transfer operations [in other words, the lightly armed amphibs felt they were safer near her]. The Ticonderoga routinely performed flight-following of dozens of helicopters in the area (U.S., French, British, Israeli and commercial). She became an unofficial de-facto sea-based air traffic control center. In addition to air and surface tracking, the ship maintained an active sonar search at all times off Beirut to counter the genuine threat of Libyan and Syrian diesel submarines...

 

During the Lebanon crisis, the Ticonderoga controlled 2,550 intercepts make by combat air patrol (CAP) aircraft against radar targets. The ability of the Aegis/SPY-1A system to engage targets anywhere within the battle groups warning area, many of which were not held by any other sensor in the battle group, was demonstrated repeatedly..."

 

Maybe there's a reason Aegis ships don't get attacked from the air, the bad guys having to resort to small inconspicuous looking boats instead. It is after all, always better to be the one doing the shooting than the one getting shot at. If Aegis makes that happen (and it does) then it has done its job.

 

End of rant.

[Guest aevans]

Why? Do you think it was not in action?

265330[/snapback]

 

No more in significantly opposed action than the USN in the last 50 years.

[Ken Estes]

Fitz, I was not really looking for a rant, but I think any ship can run over a mine or suffer a terrorist attack, even civilian cruise liners. That does not make it a combat action in which fires are exchanged, although Cole could have been a little more effective on her part, eh? I do discount the Boghammers, as advocates of the T-class also ought to, seeing how ineffectual Vincennes was, especially after she casrep'd one of 2 5" mounts. Being a launch platform for cruise missiles is not really combat action, nor is providing Aegis/SM2 cover when there is no threat air, for much the same reason.

 

Don't worry, all these ships will contribute to their true design function of the 2nd Battle of Midway, just not in their lifespan. The next IJN is on the Japanese calendar, its just that it measures generations, not 365 days like ours does.

 

I am sorry to have stressed you out and made you type so much. I was in the USN and rode DD types and liked them a lot. But I also have been a Beltway warrior in Navy Annex and know the diffeence between real warfare that I have long studied, and Washington programatics. I intended what I wrote to be taken as a playful jibe, however truthful and am sorry if I gave you a hard time. Cheers, Ken

[JOE BRENNAN]

The USN has seldom been engaged on the surface since WWII, but a core of its power is its aircraft, why aircraft carriers are the most important warships(sticking to rules supposed to exclude subs) of the 20th century. USN carrier a/c have been engaged lots of times since WWII, comparable to the level of engagement of the RN in its 19th century period of hegemony.

 

On trivia, the last somewhat real USN surface action was the sinking of the Iranian missile boat Joshan (a few months before Vincennes incident). The Joshan fired a Harpoon which was decoyed or didn't guide, then was overwhelmed with SM-1 fire and finished with guns (a Harpoon fired at it also missed). One sided (CG, FFG and FF v. partially armed missile boat) but so were many engagements in the age of steam/steel (where unlike previous age outmatched forces usually fought it out anyway).

 

Korea and Vietnam had one surface action each, the North Korean 2nd TB Flotilla v. USS Juneau in company with HMS's Jamaica and Black Swan July 2 1950 and Div 3 North Vietnamese TB Sdn 135 v. USS Maddox Aug 2 1964*. That's v. "real" warships cutting off at MTB; auxiliary NV vessels (armed trawlers etc) got hits on USN and USCG vessels, I guess that's real if you're on the ship hit though.

 

Re: Kagero's, surface ships as the main killers of other surface ships in general was ultimately a dead end; submarines and a/c were more effective torpedo delivery platforms, even more so for antiship missiles. I nominated Kirov as a bold attempt to break out of that, but it's still generally and ultimately true. The peak of the concept of torpedo armed surface ship as antisurface ship vehicle still deserves recognition though, as does peak of the big gun surface ship killer (late pre Treaty BB's IMO, factoring in relevance), also ultimately a dead end. The new (defensive) concept of the surface ship is most completely fulfilled in Aegis ships.

 

*no proof of a real opponent in the second Gulf of Tonkin engagement, or real missile boats at the battle of Dong Hoi in April 1972, though the MiG-17's of 923rd Fighter Regiment were real in that engagement.

 

Joe

[Guest pfcem]

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.

265025[/snapback]

The Iowas had the firepower & protection to be able to take on any enemy battleship & could keep up with the carriers (never underestimeat the importance of that fact)!

 

Their intended role was to support the carriers & provide NFS, which they did quite well.

 

You are confusing what they actually did do (which is based as much on opportunity as anything else) with what they were capable of if given the chance.

 

They were the most capable battleships ever afloat & should be recognised for that & put near the top of the list.

[yak_v]

Their intended role was to support the carriers & provide NFS, which they did quite well.

 

And your source of that assertion is?

 

Vladimir

[DB]

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

265269[/snapback]

In Warrior to Dreadnought, on page 200 there is a set of charts showing date-based trends for various performance parameters for RN ships.

 

The fuel consumption chart gives dates from 1860 to 1905 (unsurprisingly) and shows a reasonably linear decline in coal consumption (lb/ihp/hr) from around 3.5 to around 1.5 over that time. Two of the three lowest data points in that chart are for the two turbine equipped vessels, which are not identified.

 

The contemporary (ie post 1900) reciprocal engine comparisons to the turbines would seem to be triple expansion engines, which are far more complex beasts.

 

In addition, turbines were far ahead of reciprocal engines in terms of ihp/ton, and comparable in terms of space used, which caused some design issues with mass distribution.

 

There is no doubt that superfiring turrets are superior to the alternative layouts - Dreadnought's "wing" turrets mar an otherwise superb design, IMHO.

 

David

[Scott Cunningham]

There is no doubt that superfiring turrets are superior to the alternative layouts - Dreadnought's "wing" turrets mar an otherwise superb design, IMHO.

 

265563[/snapback]

 

Thats why I look at the US South Carolina class as a design actually more advanced than the revolutionary Dreadnought. It was WAY ahead of its time, having both the all big gun arrangement of the Brit ship, as well as the efficient superfiring setup that characterized US designs.

[Guest pfcem]

And your source of that assertion is?

265557[/snapback]

Several.

 

It may take some time to find a on-line source that goes into enough much detail to satisfy you or to dig out some of my older books to quote directly from.

 

I will start with this. Why is it that the Iowas were designed to maintain 33+kts?

[JOE BRENNAN]

1. The fuel consumption chart gives dates from 1860 to 1905 (unsurprisingly) and shows a reasonably linear decline in coal consumption (lb/ihp/hr) from around 3.5 to around 1.5 over that time. Two of the three lowest data points in that chart are for the two turbine equipped vessels, which are not identified.

 

2. The contemporary (ie post 1900) reciprocal engine comparisons to the turbines would seem to be triple expansion engines, which are far more complex beasts.

 

3. In addition, turbines were far ahead of reciprocal engines in terms of ihp/ton, and comparable in terms of space used, which caused some design issues with mass distribution.

265563[/snapback]

1. But you need more hp to go the same speed with the direct drive turbine, because of the suboptimally high prop rotation speed (the reason for gears and turbo-electric). The USS North Dakota with turbines had quoted endurance 6560 miles at 10kts, sister Delaware with triple expanders 9750 (the first "full speed" US dreadnoughts). The Cunard liners Caronia and Carmania were sisters too except latter turbine, considerably higher fuel consumption though often said to have lead to wider adoption of turbines.

 

2. That's true, the triple expander (eventually with 4 cylinders or occasional quad expanders) is what we're speaking of from 1890's onward.

 

3. Carmania's plant was only around 5% lighter than Caronia's.

 

The big advantage of direct turbines for BB's (TBD's might be a little different) was what was already mentioned, higher reliability at high power for sustained periods, plus lower vibration from the engine itself (in those days when vibration was poorly understood, some ships had serious vibration problems from shafting or prop/hull interaction). Also the USN was later to go to turbines also partly because of specific mechanical problems with their's, as well as greater emphasis on endurance than RN of the period.

 

Joe

Edited January 2, 2006 by JOE BRENNAN

[Kip Swanson]

I had mistaken the topic as being ships that have actually done a bit of fighting. Best Fighting Ship equals ships that have fought. Apparently not. If the list included ships that did a bit of time at the sharp end of the stick, and survived to tell the tale, I would have to include The battlecruiser HMS Lion (WWI). I’d toss into the fray SMS Seydlitz (WWI) and USS Enterprise (WWII).

[bigfngun]

And your source of that assertion is?

 

Vladimir

265557[/snapback]

 

If you read US Battleships by Garzke & Dulin Amazon book link, there is a section dealing with the USNavy's view of the fleet of the future pre-Pearl Harbor. It envisioned a fleet of fast carriers AND fast BBs to provide fire support against enemy surface ships and to be protected by the carriers and vice versa. It was a fleet that to an extent sacrificed some firepower (i.e. 18in guns) and protection for greater speed to keep up with carriers and great range for Pacific ops.

Edited January 2, 2006 by bigfngun

[Guest pfcem]

If you read US Battleships by Garzke & Dulin Amazon book link, there is a section dealing with the USNavy's view of the fleet of the future pre-Pearl Harbor.  It envisioned a fleet of fast carriers AND fast BBs to provide fire support against enemy surface ships and to be protected by the carriers and vice versa.  It was a fleet that to an extent sacrificed some firepower (i.e. 18in guns) and protection for greater speed to keep up with carriers and great range for Pacific ops.

265578[/snapback]

Thanks bigfngun.

 

Does that not (more or less) agree with what I said? [smilie not directed at you]

 

I am in fact looking for something even more specific & more in depth to ensure that there is no question. I know that I have read what it is I am looking for, the problem is finding it.

Edited January 3, 2006 by pfcem

[Guest aevans]

Thats why I look at the US South Carolina class as a design actually more advanced than the revolutionary Dreadnought. It was WAY ahead of its time, having both the all big gun arrangement of the Brit ship, as well as the efficient superfiring setup that characterized US designs.

265567[/snapback]

 

Yeah, but those triple expansion engines...

[DB]

1. But you need more hp to go the same speed with the direct drive turbine, because of the suboptimally high prop rotation speed (the reason for gears and turbo-electric). The USS North Dakota with turbines had quoted endurance 6560 miles at 10kts, sister Delaware with triple expanders 9750 (the first "full speed" US dreadnoughts). The Cunard liners Caronia and Carmania were sisters too except latter turbine, considerably higher fuel consumption though often said to have lead to wider adoption of turbines.

As usual in these instances, a more detailed examination of the book tells the real story.

 

Viper used more than twice as much coal per mile as did an appproximately equivalent "30-knotter" TBD at 15 knots, although full power consumption rates were similar.

 

The money quote, refering to Velox is this [p184]:

Fuel consumption was very heavy, even at full speed ... ...only the introduction of the geared turbine could resolve this dilemma.

 

Apologies for having only half the story.

 

David

[Hans Engstrom]

I may be way off, but although the South Carolina looks more 'modern' doesn't she seem to have the same broadside (8 guns) as Dreadnought? Meanwhile, Dreadnought can muster 6 guns fore or aft whilst South Carolina only has 4?

[Scott Cunningham]

Yes, but not in practice. You had to be perfectly beam on to use those guns. It took the S dakota one less turret to manage the same number of guns, and all could be fired on a broadside, while 2 of Dreadnoughts were always out of action.

 

By 1920's all designs looked like the SD

[Richard Young]

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

265269[/snapback]

 

 

There is also the ongoing war between the turbine manufacturers in the US and the Navy - apparently, the turbine manufacturers wouldn't or couldn't produce turbines to spec/cost as the Navy desired, so they stuck with triple-expansion engines longer than other navies. Range for Pacific ops is also a consideration...

[Scott Cunningham]

As far as engines, I think the US kept reciprocationg engines through the USS Oaklahoma. I know the NY/Texas had them. You can see the engine room on the Texas, and the engines are massive.

[Richard Young]

Several.

 

It may take some time to find a on-line source that goes into enough much detail to satisfy you or to dig out some of my older books to quote directly from. 

 

I will start with this.  Why is it that the Iowas were designed to maintain 33+kts?

265569[/snapback]

 

 

OOOH I KNOW! Pick me! Pick me! At least one Iowa class was to operate with each carrier group, in case a Kongo class battle cruiser/"fast battleship" got close enough, and in a favorable position wind-over-deck wise, to require the carriers to retire out of range in a circumstance where they couldn't do that AND launch. The Iowa wa intended to duke it out while the carriers opened the range. One huge fact that escapes the "carier" guys in arguments like this is that night, bad weather, fouled decks, or even just.having the wind come from the wrong direction could reduce or eliminate air ops, much less NGF. Night ops were largely experimental until very late in the war, and "all weather" carrier capability didn't arrive until the mid to late Fifties. The Japanese had a habit of running big-gun units up to the targets, be they islands or enemy naval units, under cover of darkness. Iowa was also intended to add it's considerable AA fire to the carrier's escorts. In order for OUR battleship to be there when needed, it needed to be able to keep up with the CVs and their escourts.

[Ken Estes]

The Japanese had a habit of running big-gun units up to the targets, be they islands or enemy naval units, under cover of darkness. Iowa was also intended to add it's considerable AA fire to the carrier's escorts.  In order for OUR battleship to be there when needed, it needed to be able to keep up with the CVs and their escourts.

265752[/snapback]

 

Don't know the 'habit' was ever established as the IJN battle line spent most of the war in port, certainly was not "up to the target" in their participation at Midway. They risked Kongos as if they were cruisers, which was their role in pre-war doctrine under the diminution theory, covering the DD flotillas. In the 1941-42 amphib ops, they and the heavy cruisers acted as covering forces, only acting, as at Wake, Guadalcanal, when the lighter forces failed. How much this would have been appreciated in the pre-war Iowa design [not operations] leaves me guessing.

 

As far as BB61 AAW is concerned, the Iowa design doubtlessly came before the decision to cover them with 40mm and Oerlikons, which mostly served as point [self-] defense. The 5" DP battery did not equal the CLAA in broadside. Their best virtue as AA ships was steadiness in a seaway. At best, they filled their part of the screen well, but a single BB was no solution to AAW in a TF.

 

As noted before, nothing was proven owing to the changed situation after their inserv.

[yak_v]

Thanks bigfngun.

 

Does that not (more or less) agree with what I said?    [smilie not directed at you]

 

I am in fact looking for something even more specific & more in depth to ensure that there is no question.  I know that I have read what it is I am looking for, the problem is finding it.

265594[/snapback]

 

 

Actually yes. You said:

Their intended role was to support the carriers & provide NFS, which they did quite well.

 

In all other threads you have used NFS as a ground fire support. This was not original role of the Iowas. Nor does that source quoted by bigfngun say that.

 

Vladimir

[Guest pfcem]

Actually yes.  You said:

Their intended role was to support the carriers & provide NFS, which they did quite well.

 

In all other threads you have used NFS as a ground fire support.  This was not original role of the Iowas.  Nor does that source quoted by bigfngun say that.

265839[/snapback]

Naval Fire Support is a more modern term for Naval Bombardment (as it was known when battleships were considered the dominant warship) & was perhaps not the best choice. Naval Bombardment today (aka NFS) is almost exclusively intended to imply bombardment of targets on land rather than at sea but prior to & during WWII the term implied both.

 

Naval Bombardment (of targets both at sea & on land) had been a part of "traditional" naval thinking since before the 20th century. Prior to the late 1930's, bombardment of other ships was the more prevalent of the two types of bombardment.

 

My point is that the Iowas were intended primarily to support the carriers (not the other way around as had been the case with previous battleships), their design shows this & that they did that quite well.

[yak_v]

Naval Bombardment (of targets both at sea & on land) had been a part of "traditional" naval thinking since before the 20th century.  Prior to the late 1930's, bombardment of other ships was the more prevalent of the two types of bombardment.

 

Naval bombardment has never been used in conjuction with the ship-to-ship battles.

 

Vladimir