Tony Williams Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 (edited) If you're going to include a poorly armed ASW frigate, I vote for the RN 'Blackwood'. 2 x Limbo + 3 x 40mm L/60266113[/snapback]That certainly turned out to be one of the most useless ships, because it never saw a war. It was specifically designed as a war emergency ship, to be built cheaply in numbers as a convoy ASW escort if required. But the combination of small size and cost meant that it couldn't carry anything other than ASW kit and the Bofors guns, so it wasn't much use for anything else. I think one or two of the Type 14 class did see action of a (very limited) sort: against Icelandic patrol vessels in the Cod War! However, IIRC their fragility meant that they were at something of a disadvantage. For another white elephant of a different sort: how about HMS Bristol? Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum Edited January 4, 2006 by Tony Williams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yak_v Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 For another white elephant of a different sort: how about HMS Bristol? Which one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soren Ras Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 (edited) (Ok, so I know it wasn't designed in the period 1900-2000, but it was at least raised in that period ) No list of bad warship designs is complete wihtout a mention of the Vasa It did manage to kill 50 people. Unfortunately, that was from its crew. On the other hand, as a tourist attraction, the design was pretty successful --Soren Edited January 4, 2006 by Soren Ras Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dobrodan Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 What was wrong with Victoria? It was a perfectly fine battleship. Vladimir266008[/snapback] It sunk... Without being fired at... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Lindquist Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 The two biggest US mistakes were the Omaha-class light cruisers and the flush decker destroyers. Those both classes gave useful service in WWII, their usefulness was badly limited by changes in naval tactics and technology between their design and their commissioning. Denver class cruisers werre designed from the get-go as large gunboats/peace cruisers. They performed their mission for many years and remained in commission at times while more potent, yet less economical cruisers were sitting at the dock. Considering their cost, the US got their money's worth from these ships. For combat purposes, they had no value, but they were large enough to house a staff for a local squadron commander and they could transport a reasonable force of marines which the smaller gunboats could not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swerve Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 It sunk... Without being fired at...266166[/snapback] Like Vasa & Mary Rose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Williams Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Which one?266134[/snapback]The big 1970s destroyer, with mixed steam/gas powerplant, Sea Dart, Ikara, and 4.5 in Mk 8. It was intended to be one of a class providing air defence to the big CA-01 carriers, but when these were cancelled it lost its role and became a big white elephant thereafter. I think it was only useful in the training role. Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nom Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Couple points. The Alaska Class large cruisers had a high cost due at least a bit to the Navy using their design period to test out several different main gun arrangements. Beyond that they were intended as anti-raider ships to hunt down Japansese super cruiser raiders that the USN thought were being built. Calling the Spruance a poor design based on lack of armament isnt totally fair since the ships were designed with lots of space for additional armament to be added. I would be willing to bet that this was done intentionally by the Navy to get the ships built. Its easier to build a cheap ship then get the money later to upgrade than it is to get an expensive ship built. Poor designs really should include the Shinano as well as the two Japanese battleship to partial CV conversions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p620346 Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 "What was wrong with Victoria? It was a perfectly fine battleship." Noting wrong with the ship other than she had an idiot for a captain who blindly followed an irrational order. T K-class steam subs also became excessively hot from residual boiler heat after diving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob B Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 "What was wrong with Victoria? It was a perfectly fine battleship." Noting wrong with the ship other than she had an idiot for a captain who blindly followed an irrational order.... 266214[/snapback] Victoria's sistership, the HMS Sans Pareil, stayed in service for a long time and wasn't broken up until 1907. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yak_v Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 It sunk... Without being fired at...266166[/snapback] Any other warship of the day would have sank in the same collision. This has nothing to do with a design. Vladimir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparviero Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 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.265959[/snapback] I think one must be a bit more specific when talking of Italian light cruisers. I'm guessing first of all that you are speaking of the Condottieri class. The original series and the second series I would agree with this statement. However later subtypes matured into better ships ending with the four ships of the type serving into the 60s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnocci Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Nanuchka Corvettes (RU)...top heavy, no blue water capability265954[/snapback] Nanuchkas are COOL. And that's Nº1 priority for a war ship. Number 2 is "stay afloat", and number 3 is also "stay afloat". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p620346 Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 "Nanuchkas are COOL. And that's Nº1 priority for a war ship. " By that criteria, the KIROV CCGN ase undoubtedly the coolist looking, therefore best, warships ever built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swerve Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Incidentally, has anyone found a website on HMS Victoria? I saw an article in a newspaper that claimed she had been found on the seabed, standing on end like a skyscraper. Link in post no 14, this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yama Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Amazon (Type 21 Frigate) (UK)... Steel Superstructure and aluminum hull265954[/snapback] Aluminum hull, contrary to the myths, did not have meaningful contribution to loss of two type 21's in Falklands. Oliver Hazard Perry class (US)...poor sea-keeping and lack of armament265954[/snapback] OHP is actually quite well-armed: two-chopper hangar, SSM's, area SAM's, 76mm gun, CIWS all in 4000 ton hull...although, one could argue that in reality this arsenal is somewhat compromised: gun is badly placed, single launcher for SSM's and (somewhat obsolete) SAM, speed inadequate for carrier escort, only single shaft... I can't believe nobody has named "large light cruisers", examples of traditional British naval design brilliance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X-Files Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 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. )266070[/snapback] Very cool, but they're overdue on the video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 "What was wrong with Victoria? It was a perfectly fine battleship." Noting wrong with the ship other than she had an idiot for a captain who blindly followed an irrational order.266214[/snapback]It is debatable as to who was to blame for carrying out Tryon's order - a significant amount of fault would presumably lie with the Flagship bridge crew who didn't adequately question the order, but Markham (in command of the other column) could have avoided the problem by showing some initiative in interpreting the order. He didn't. Whilst Victoria wasn't shot at, it was rammed by the ram-equipped Camperdown, which means it was "attacked" by a weapon of sorts. Tryon may have been going potty by this time, if the author of the last Jutland related book I forget the name of is to be believed. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zakk Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Why havent anyone mentioned Vitse Admiral Popov and Novgorod, the Russian circular ironclads? When talking about butt-uglyness the Fuso must be in a league by itself: http://candamo.iespana.es/candamo/japon/barcos/fuso-f.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Werb Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 I think it was only useful in the training role. And apparently it still is! http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/2582.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Durandal Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Still Hans Strelow's Assault boat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikel2 Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 (edited) Duplicate post Edited January 5, 2006 by Mikel2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob B Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 (edited) ......Incidentally, has anyone found a website on HMS Victoria? I saw an article in a newspaper that claimed she had been found on the seabed, standing on end like a skyscraper. 266242[/snapback] Here is a link to the diving outfit that actually found the Victoria. It was in post #20. http://www.inspired-training.com/hms%20victoria.htm Lots of cool photos. [/img] Edited January 5, 2006 by Bob B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FITZ Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Aluminum hull, contrary to the myths, did not have meaningful contribution to loss of two type 21's in Falklands. No RN frigate has EVER had an aluminum hull. In fact, I am aware of no warship in human history even approaching the size of a Type 21 where the hull was constructed from aluminum. With current technology there is a definate upper limit to the maximum size of an aluminum hulled ship. I can't recall exact figures but it's about 1/3 the size of a Type 21. OHP is actually quite well-armed: two-chopper hangar, SSM's, area SAM's, 76mm gun, CIWS all in 4000 ton hull...although, one could argue that in reality this arsenal is somewhat compromised: gun is badly placed, single launcher for SSM's and (somewhat obsolete) SAM, speed inadequate for carrier escort, only single shaft... 266281[/snapback] The 76mm gun on the FFG-7 is quite well placed for its intended role - AAW. They were also frequently tasked to carrier groups, though not designed to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitflegal Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Out of curiosity, why the lack of love for the Soviet Alfa? While it was loud as Hell at 40+ knot, it could also ourun and outdive most of the West's antisubmarine torpedoes. According to books like Polmar's "Cold War Submarines", the noise at lower speeds was pretty overstated and it was actually fairly tough to detect with late 70's/early 80's sonar technology. While the first sub, K-64, had a failure of the liquid-metal reactor the rest weren't hangar queens, although there were difficulties along the way. Beyond that, the great strides in working with titanium, automating the submarine and allowing a 30 man crew were pretty impressive. Finally, faults aside, it was a gutsy response to the problems of countering the US and British carrier groups. Had NATO been facing significant Soviet carrier forces, we would have needed to come up with something similar. Besides, they actually remained in service for close to 15 years until the SU fell and kept going out on sorties and bugging the carrier groups. Might not have been the best sub of all time but God knows that there are plenty of worse ones. Matt 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