Top Ten fighting ships of all time

[decaro]

I'm watching the Military Channel and the #1 fighting ship of all time was the Iowa Class BB w/Mk 7 16" guns; repeatedly moth-balled and then recalled for Korea, Vietnam and finally ODS w/Tomahawk Crusie missles.

2nd place: Nimitz Class CV mostly because being nuclear powered, it can sail almost anywhere in the world.

3rd place: Queen Elizabeth Class BB, notable HMS Warspite

[wdolson]

For usefulness over the life of the ship I would put the Essex class carriers as 1st. Post war they were overshadowed by newer carriers, but that was the class of ship that made winning the war in the Pacific possible. Post war they were used extensively in Korea and Vietnam. If the Navy wanted to, they could have a few in service today as amphibious assault support ships. The only reason they are all scrapped or museum ships is all their possible roles have been filled by newer hulls.

Iowas were obsolete the day they were commissioned. They were useful for some support roles at various times, but they were never used in their intended role as part of the battleline. Personally I think their refurbishment and recommissioning in the 1980s was mostly a political move. The Tomahawks could easily have been put on some smaller hulls, maybe using more hulls to do the job. It probably would have been cheaper.

Bill

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

For usefulness over the life of the ship I would put the Essex class carriers as 1st. Post war they were overshadowed by newer carriers, but that was the class of ship that made winning the war in the Pacific possible. Post war they were used extensively in Korea and Vietnam. If the Navy wanted to, they could have a few in service today as amphibious assault support ships. The only reason they are all scrapped or museum ships is all their possible roles have been filled by newer hulls.

Iowas were obsolete the day they were commissioned. They were useful for some support roles at various times, but they were never used in their intended role as part of the battleline. Personally I think their refurbishment and recommissioning in the 1980s was mostly a political move. The Tomahawks could easily have been put on some smaller hulls, maybe using more hulls to do the job. It probably would have been cheaper.

Bill

It was definitely political... Congress likes them BBs. I'm glad they're all still around, and I hope Iowa completes the museum ship process. I just wish (/pipedream) they'd magically drop her in the river or lake back home.

As for obsolete on the day they were commissioned, I'm not so sure. The role they were designed for was definitely obsolete, but I think they had a place as the heavy escorts for the fast CV task forces. In that regard, they probably could've downgraded the main battery a little bit and added more AA. A 2x3 16" gun setup (1 triple turret each fore and aft) would be interesting, if a lot less pretty.

[wdolson]

To get the same AA firepower, the US could have put more DDs and/or CLs in CV task forces which would have cost less to build and less manpower to keep at sea. The US had only a few slips that could build capital ships. The last two Iowas were launched early to make room for more Essexes. If the Iowas were canceled at the start of the war, it would have freed up yard space for more Essexes which would have given the USN a bit more punch by 1944.

Replace the 4 Iowas that were finished with 4-5 more Essexes and the USN has an extra task group in TF 38/58.

As far as lines go, the Iowas were very nice looking ships. There is something both graceful and powerful in their lines. The Iowas and Yamatos were the pinnacle of large surface ship design. A clipper ship was a beautiful ship too, however they were mostly retired within 20 years of their introduction because technology passed them by.

Bill

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

To get the same AA firepower, the US could have put more DDs and/or CLs in CV task forces which would have cost less to build and less manpower to keep at sea. The US had only a few slips that could build capital ships. The last two Iowas were launched early to make room for more Essexes. If the Iowas were canceled at the start of the war, it would have freed up yard space for more Essexes which would have given the USN a bit more punch by 1944.

Replace the 4 Iowas that were finished with 4-5 more Essexes and the USN has an extra task group in TF 38/58.

As far as lines go, the Iowas were very nice looking ships. There is something both graceful and powerful in their lines. The Iowas and Yamatos were the pinnacle of large surface ship design. A clipper ship was a beautiful ship too, however they were mostly retired within 20 years of their introduction because technology passed them by.

Bill

True, but at the time of design there hadn't yet been a war where (naval) airpower beat up surface power. Wikipedia only has launch dates, but given that the first two were launched in '42, I think Iowa/New Jersey were probably far enough along at the time of war's start to be not worth scrapping the progress for materials/berth space. The other two...yeah, should've just done 2 more Essexes.

[wdolson]

Here is the timeline of all six Iowas from the Navy's history site:

Iowa (BB-61), built at the New York Navy Yard. Keel laid in June 1940; launched in August 1942; commissioned in February 1943.

New Jersey (BB-62), built at the Philadelphia Navy Yard. Keel laid in September 1940; launched in December 1942; commissioned in May 1943.

Missouri (BB-63), built at the New York Navy Yard. Keel laid in January 1941; launched in January 1944; commissioned in June 1944.

Wisconsin (BB-64), built at the Philadelphia Navy Yard. Keel laid in January 1941; launched in December 1943; commissioned in April 1944.

Illinois (BB-65). Under construction at the Philadelphia Navy Yard. Keel laid in January 1945. Cancelled in August 1945 when 22% complete. Scrapped on the shipway in 1958.

Kentucky (BB-66). Under construction at the Norfolk Navy Yard, Portsmouth, Virginia. Keel originally laid in March 1942; construction suspended in June 1942, resumed in December 1944 and suspended again in February 1947. Hull launched in January 1950 to clear the building dock. Sold for scrapping in 1958.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first 4 were under construction at the start of the war. Further along than I thought.

Bill

[geofflambert]

Everybody is wrong on this one. Number one is the class consisting of the USS Constitution, the President and the United States.

[MineSweeper]

The 44 gun frigates....they were indeed very good ships in that era.

[MineSweeper]

Kentucky (BB-66). Under construction at the Norfolk Navy Yard, Portsmouth, Virginia. Keel originally laid in March 1942; construction suspended in June 1942, resumed in December 1944 and suspended again in February 1947. Hull launched in January 1950 to clear the building dock. Sold
Bill

I believe that the Kentucky donated its bow to one of the Iowa's for damage incurred.

[geofflambert]

Yes, one of them rammed one of our own destroyers (by accident), I forget which.

[geofflambert]

Here we go. It was Wisconsin.

[wdolson]

The engines on the Kentucky were used on some auxiliary ship, I forget which. I recall reading about that when the ship was retired a couple of years ago. The last operational part of an Iowa class ship.

Bill

[MineSweeper]

Sacramento's I believe.....2 engines for each one.

[geofflambert]

I think the sailors in the pic were thinking "We don't need no stinking bow".

[CV60]

I'm a sucker for lists like this, so I'll give a shot at creating my own list. For this purpose, I will define "fightingness" as a ship with a combination of longest useful service life and combat effectiveness:
1) Essex Class CV-In service for approximately 48 years. Class used as everything from attack carriers to training carriers. Formed backbone of USN in Pacific. None lost in combat
2) Gearing/Sumner class DD-In service from 1944 to Present (one hull is still on active service with Mexican Navy).
3) Queen Elizabeth BB-In service from Jutland to end of WWII. Effective in 2 World Wars and during the transition from battleships to airpower.
4) Iowa class BB-In service from WWII to end of Cold War (with lengthy hiatus). None lost in combat. Effective AA/Shore Bombardment and Naval Presence vessels. Also effective for deceiving enemies (faking the amphibious attack in Gulf War I).
5) USS Constitution/44-gun frigate class-Revolutionary in design at the time, outstanding combat record, effectively superceeded only when steam power came into widespread use.
6) HMS Victory-In service from 1765 through (I believe) approx. 1820.
7) TBD
8) TBD
9) TBD
10) TBD
I'm leaving the NIMITZ class CVNs off the list. Despite being magnificent ships, they have never been truly tested in combat.

[MineSweeper]

Might pay her a visit in the next few weeks....only 90 minute drive away [;)]

[TSCofield]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

To get the same AA firepower, the US could have put more DDs and/or CLs in CV task forces which would have cost less to build and less manpower to keep at sea. The US had only a few slips that could build capital ships. The last two Iowas were launched early to make room for more Essexes. If the Iowas were canceled at the start of the war, it would have freed up yard space for more Essexes which would have given the USN a bit more punch by 1944.

Replace the 4 Iowas that were finished with 4-5 more Essexes and the USN has an extra task group in TF 38/58.

As far as lines go, the Iowas were very nice looking ships. There is something both graceful and powerful in their lines. The Iowas and Yamatos were the pinnacle of large surface ship design. A clipper ship was a beautiful ship too, however they were mostly retired within 20 years of their introduction because technology passed them by.

Bill

That would have drastically increased the actual number of ships in a task force. Logistically this would have been more difficult. While the total AA could have been replicated with three or four CLs the fact that the BBs tended to attract enemy aircraft in a way that cruisers couldn't made them valuable. Remember the Rebels attacked the Death Star, they didn't give the Imperial Cruisers 'Cruisers' as much attention.

The whole top ten was stupid anyway. The Hood is number 10? While a beautiful ship and certainly a nice representative of British naval might in the 1920s the ship suffered from the same problems as every single Battlecruiser that came before her. She was pretty but in the end she succumbed rather easily to the guns of a real BB.

And the Deutchland Class? They were absolutely useless in real war. It was a compromise design and did nothing well. They weren't armored well enough to sustain combat against larger warships, the guns were great in 1:1 combat against a single cruiser but the Royal Navy never traveled alone and they were simply too slow to get away from a pack of hunters. The Royal Navy already had three ships that were faster, better armed and better armored than the Deutchlands (Repulse, Hood, Renown) so all the cruisers had to do was keep the ships busy until one of those ships showed up. Heck, the Queen Es weren't that much slower than the Deutchlands, anything that slowed a Deutchland down would doom it. To me they were worthless ships. They showed the flag well in the 30's but the propaganda value was a lot more than their value as a warship.

The Bismarks aren't any better. Outdated design with some serious flaws, poor AA defense, poor radar fire control. They were good ships in 1941, probably as good as the KGV BBs but top 10 warships? Neither did a damned thing in the war with the exception of the Bismark sinking one 21 year old battlecruiser. They brag about how the Bismark sunk the Hood but ignore how the Washington completely pasted the Kirishima, a similar battlecruiser/battleship hybrid that in reality had a better career.

Personally, I would have pulled those three ships. Instead I would have put the Gato Class Subs, the Baltimore Class Cruisers and the Type XX1 submarines. Heck, they didn't even mention the Monitor or CSS Virginia, probably the two most significant warship designs of the 19th century. What about the HMS Victory? USS Constitution? If they said the 20th Century I suppose I could see that but there were a lot of really significant ships left off that list, and a few overrated ones on it.

Deutchland class, what BS.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: CV60
6) HMS Victory-In service from 1765 through (I believe) approx. 1820.

Does everyone realise that when the Brits decided to build a ship of the line, they first planted the trees they would be made from. These trees were grown in forests in the possession of the king, hence the name "Royal Oak" for one of them. I suppose you should add to their longevity the time from when the trees were planted and the ship was commissioned. Un effing believable.

[wdolson]

The British had so thoroughly logged Britain by the time the colonies in North America were established one of the attractions of the New World was a new source of trees for ships of the Royal Navy.

I have heard that during colonial times a squirrel could go from New England to the Mississippi River without ever touching the ground. That's how heavily wooded the Eastern US was. A lot of those trees were just chopped down and burned to make room for farming, but they went to a lot of other uses too.

Bill

[Jorge_Stanbury]

The best warship of all time:
The Hellenistic Quinquereme







Put it this way... If somehow the great Roman or Carthaginian fleets of the 1st punic war fought at Lepanto; I think they would have had a good chance... and that is good ship design