Scott Cunningham Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 Companion thread to the 10 best ship discussion. Which 10 modern designs (1900-2000) were the biggest disappointments in service? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yak_v Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 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 More sharing options...
Fermi2 Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 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... Vladimir265925[/snapback] What's wrong with Steam Power on a submarine? Nukes utilize steam power. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yak_v Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 What's wrong with Steam Power on a submarine? Nukes utilize steam power. Mike265929[/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 More sharing options...
Fermi2 Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 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. Vladimir265937[/snapback] My point exactly!! Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IEDDJAMMER Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 My Contribution Amazon (Type 21 Frigate) (UK)... Steel Superstructure and aluminum hullOliver Hazard Perry class (US)...poor sea-keeping and lack of armamentLouis St Laurent class, (CA)...the sameAny WARPAC submersible...County Class LST (US)...single use shipFlower Class Corvettes (CA, UK)...poor seakeeping, marginal success as warshipsSpruance Class (US)... Lack of armament for its sizeArliegh Burke Flight 1 Class (US)...Lack of helo for a ship that requires oneNanuchka Corvettes (RU)...top heavy, no blue water capabilityCollins Class Submarines (AUS)...problem plagued since inception Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samson Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 Number 1.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Cunningham Posted January 3, 2006 Author Share Posted January 3, 2006 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 More sharing options...
IEDDJAMMER Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 Number 1.... 265957[/snapback]GO NAVY!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_starlight Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 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 More sharing options...
LeoTanker Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 What about MHS Hood? Looked damned tougth and strong, but blow upp like a box of new years eve crackers after just one or two hits... And I guess the Spanish Armada would have some ships/boats qualifying for this list too.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yak_v Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 (edited) Do notice the initial post wanted ships from 20th century... Vladimir Edited January 4, 2006 by yak_v Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IEDDJAMMER Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 I'll also add the DDH-280 (Iroquois Class) (CA).Damned big ASW Ship...too big Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dobrodan Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 I think we could add the HMS Victoria to that list... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yak_v Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 I think we could add the HMS Victoria to that list...266006[/snapback] What was wrong with Victoria? It was a perfectly fine battleship. Vladimir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IEDDJAMMER Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 How about those silly hydrofoil designs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baboon6 Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 My Contribution Amazon (Type 21 Frigate) (UK)... Steel Superstructure and aluminum hullOliver Hazard Perry class (US)...poor sea-keeping and lack of armamentLouis St Laurent class, (CA)...the sameAny WARPAC submersible...County Class LST (US)...single use shipFlower Class Corvettes (CA, UK)...poor seakeeping, marginal success as warshipsSpruance Class (US)... Lack of armament for its sizeArliegh Burke Flight 1 Class (US)...Lack of helo for a ship that requires oneNanuchka Corvettes (RU)...top heavy, no blue water capabilityCollins Class Submarines (AUS)...problem plagued since inception265954[/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 More sharing options...
T19 Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 I'll also add the DDH-280 (Iroquois Class) (CA).Damned big ASW Ship...too big265996[/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 More sharing options...
IEDDJAMMER Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Cubicle!!! LOL....No need to be defensive, just expressing an opinion. Might want to know your experience level with them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob B Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 (edited) What was wrong with Victoria? It was a perfectly fine battleship. Vladimir266008[/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. 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. ) Edited January 4, 2006 by Bob B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aevans Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 County Class LST (US)...single use ship265954[/snapback] What "single" use would that be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavT Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 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 More sharing options...
TheSilentType Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 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. Oliver Hazard Perry class (US)...poor sea-keeping and lack of armament Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Werb Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 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 More sharing options...
Chris Werb Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now