Jump to content

10 Worst ship designs


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Companion thread to the 10 best ship discussion. Which 10 modern designs (1900-2000) were the biggest disappointments in service?

265896[/snapback]

 

In no particular order:

 

Russian Borodino class PDs (1902-04) - "Improved" a very good Tsesarevich design, by thinning armor and making it 1000 tons bigger and adding another 1000 tons of overweight to it.

 

US Denver class cruisers (1902) - a cruiser with 16 knot speed or a huge 3200 ton gunboat? Either way it is a stupid design

 

German Z-class DDs (1930s-40s) - could never quite get the machinery to work right and overgunned for the size.

 

Soviet Alfa class subs (1970s-80s) - cost their weight in gold and were so noisy that they could be heard on the other side of the ocean.

 

British K-class submarines (1920s) - Steam power on a submarine...

 

US Worcester (CL-144) class (1940s) - never quite got the guns to work right.

 

Soviet K-19 SSBN (1960s) - 3 (IIRC) reactor accidents...

 

Japanese Tomozuru class TBs (1930s) - so top heavy, it capsized in a storm

 

Austro-Hungarian Viribus Unitis class DNs (1914-18) - turrets that had no ventilation and TDS system that sucked...

 

French Surcouf (1930s-40s) & British M class (1920s) - big gun submarines...

 

Vladimir

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In no particular order:

 

Russian Borodino class PDs (1902-04) - "Improved" a very good Tsesarevich design, by thinning armor and making it 1000 tons bigger and adding another 1000 tons of overweight to it.

 

US Denver class cruisers (1902) - a cruiser with 16 knot speed or a huge 3200 ton gunboat?  Either way it is a stupid design

 

German Z-class DDs (1930s-40s) - could never quite get the machinery to work right and overgunned for the size.

 

Soviet Alfa class subs (1970s-80s) - cost their weight in gold and were so noisy that they could be heard on the other side of the ocean.

 

British K-class submarines (1920s) - Steam power on a submarine...

 

US Worcester (CL-144) class (1940s) - never quite got the guns to work right.

 

Soviet K-19 SSBN (1960s) - 3 (IIRC) reactor accidents...

 

Japanese Tomozuru class TBs (1930s) - so top heavy, it capsized in a storm

 

Austro-Hungarian Viribus Unitis class DNs (1914-18) - turrets that had no ventilation and TDS system that sucked...

 

French Surcouf (1930s-40s) & British M class (1920s) - big gun submarines...

 

Vladimir

265925[/snapback]

 

 

 

What's wrong with Steam Power on a submarine? Nukes utilize steam power.

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's wrong with Steam Power on a submarine? Nukes utilize steam power.

 

Mike

265929[/snapback]

 

In 1920s context it meant large holes in the hull to get the air in and out of the sub. Not to mention stowing the stacks and making sure that all of the holes are closed before diving. No crash dives on that baby.

 

I guess I should have been more specific.

 

Vladimir

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1920s context it meant large holes in the hull to get the air in and out of the sub.  Not to mention stowing the stacks and making sure that all of the holes are closed before diving.  No crash dives on that baby.

 

I guess I should have been more specific.

 

Vladimir

265937[/snapback]

 

 

 

:) My point exactly!!

 

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Contribution

 

Amazon (Type 21 Frigate) (UK)... Steel Superstructure and aluminum hull

Oliver Hazard Perry class (US)...poor sea-keeping and lack of armament

Louis St Laurent class, (CA)...the same

Any WARPAC submersible...

County Class LST (US)...single use ship

Flower Class Corvettes (CA, UK)...poor seakeeping, marginal success as warships

Spruance Class (US)... Lack of armament for its size

Arliegh Burke Flight 1 Class (US)...Lack of helo for a ship that requires one

Nanuchka Corvettes (RU)...top heavy, no blue water capability

Collins Class Submarines (AUS)...problem plagued since inception

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll add in the Omaha class cruisers, Alaska Battlecruisers (too expensive, although great looking), Italian fast-cruisers, Mogami class cruisers, most of the 10K era heavy cruisers, any of the numerous follow ups to the superb Queen Elizabeth class (all inferior), the Rodney/Nelson, and the various Invincible style BC designs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HMS Captain (Cowper Coles design) - at least he was brave enough to try his own design out personally....

 

Mary Rose - a bit top heavy and a good treasure trove.....

 

Any of the French "turtle back" and/or "turret" vessels of the late 1800's

 

Frank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Contribution

 

Amazon (Type 21 Frigate) (UK)... Steel Superstructure and aluminum hull

Oliver Hazard Perry class (US)...poor sea-keeping and lack of armament

Louis St Laurent class, (CA)...the same

Any WARPAC submersible...

County Class LST (US)...single use ship

Flower Class Corvettes (CA, UK)...poor seakeeping, marginal success as warships

Spruance Class (US)... Lack of armament for its size

Arliegh Burke Flight 1 Class (US)...Lack of helo for a ship that requires one

Nanuchka Corvettes (RU)...top heavy, no blue water capability

Collins Class Submarines (AUS)...problem plagued since inception

265954[/snapback]

 

While the Flower-class corvettes weren't great, they were cheap and easy to build in great numbers, which is what was required at the time. They certainly provided valuable service in the North Atlantic.

 

The Spruances had a lot of armament added later on, including Harpoon and Tomahawk, the basic design allowed expansion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll also add the DDH-280 (Iroquois Class) (CA).

Damned big ASW Ship...too big

265996[/snapback]

 

When built they were leading edge. Hard to say that today at over 40 years of age.

 

As a helicopter ASW ship they were not too big, they are designed to survive the North Atlantic.

 

I note you other choices were the St Laurent Class, again ships designed for one job, coverted to another, and soldiered on for 45 years. The guy in the next cubicle to me served on them and he speaks highly of both class of ship. He served in NATO fleets in them so in my eyes he has some credibility. So, whats your experiance with/on them??

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was wrong with Victoria?  It was a perfectly fine battleship.

 

Vladimir

266008[/snapback]

 

 

I thought about this as a seperate topic , but since it came up here I will post this link:

http://www.inspired-training.com/hms%20victoria.htm

 

Note that it is called Victoria's Secret. :D

 

Evidently they found the old girl in a very odd position for a ship wreck. She his resting vertically with her shallowest part, the stern and props in abut 70 meters of water. A good bit of her hull is buried in the mud below. Evidently when she sunk, the heavy 16 inch guns in the single turret caused her to sink nose first after the collision with HMS Camperdown. The props were still turning as she went under and this helped to drive her into the bottom like a giant dart.

 

 

It is surprising that a sub hasn't run into it in the last hundred years.

 

Check out the photos in the link. The divers have found the name on the stern as well as the after pointing 9 inch gun. I have always been fascinated by this ship. I would love to dive this wreck! (All I need to do is learn how to dive. :lol: )

Edited by Bob B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kang Ding class of the ROCN. Strictly speaking, they're a La Fayette subclass that was stupidly equipped. All weapons mounted without steath measures, air defence is provided by the ancient Chaparral and the EW and C&C systems are of suspect.

 

Oliver Hazard Perry class (US)...poor sea-keeping and lack of armament

 

They don't seem that badly armed when you compare them to non-Russian vessels. The British's Type 42 and Type 21 started off their career similarly armed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they were meant to hunt subs then how much armament do they need? They carried 2 helicopters, which were the best ASW weapons around.

266102[/snapback]

 

If you're going to include a poorly armed ASW frigate, I vote for the RN 'Blackwood'. 2 x Limbo + 3 x 40mm L/60

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they were meant to hunt subs then how much armament do they need? They carried 2 helicopters, which were the best ASW weapons around.

266102[/snapback]

 

They also had an area AAW system, four Harpoons, six(?) torpedo tubes, a 76mm gun, 20mm CIWS, assorted ligh automatic weapons weapons, and the helos could carry Penguin and HELLFIRE and automatic weapons. Even now the missile launcher and main gun have been decommed, they're not badly armed vs what they're actually up against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...