The most successful and most unsuccessful Warships

[Karl Heidenreich]

Bgile:

The one at Miday. She had a very active career and served the entire war in the Pacific.

Superb ship. I admired it since I saw the movie "Battle of Midway" with Charlton Heston and Glenn Ford back in the 70ies. I haven´t build the model kit though, but I had build the 1:350 CVN Enterprise, the biggest model I have. Another beautiful ship.

Bgile:

Actually I meant NC-1701.

I will vote for the NCC-1701 any time, and her succesor the NCC-1701 A: Kirk´s ships.

[RF]

This is an objective issue, not to mention our favorite vessel but to think about which one was more successfull or wasn´t. Doing so having in mind that the warships accomplished the tasks they were design/built/operated for. Or don´t.
I´m going to mention some of them (but not all and not in any specific order). There may be a lot others.
SUCCESSFUL WARSHIPS: HMS Victory, IJN Mikasa, HMS King George V (WWII), USS Enterprise (WWII), USS Missouri (WWII, Korea, VN and Gulf War), HMS Iron Duke (WWI), USS South Dakota (WWII), USS Massachussets (WWII), HMS Conqueror (SSN at Falklands), HMS Dreadnought (pre WWI), U-47 (WWII), etc.
UNSUCCESFUL WARSHIPS: Bucentaure (French flagship at Trafalgar), DKM Graf Spee (WWII), Schanhorst & Gneisenau (WWI), IJN Yamato & Musashi (WWI), USS Arizona (WWII), HMS Hood (WWII), HMS Prince of Wales & Repulse (WWII), DKM Tirpitz (WWII), Richelieu & Jean Bart & Dunkerke (and all the WWII´s French Fleet for that matter), HMS Glorious (WWII), General Belgrano (Arg. Falklands), Potemkin (Russia), Suvorov (Russian flagship at Tsushima), Royal Oak (WWII), etc.

I think that what tends to get overlooked with questions like this is the human factor.
All of the ships mentioned in the quote were fine vessels for the period in which they lived. What is relevant to me is what their commanders did with them, how good were their crews?

I don't think Bismarck was a failure. The very existence of this website demonstrates that point. But Bismarck didn't have the opportunity to attack merchant shipping, it sank Hood instead. Given the opportunity it would have caused havoc with the North Atlantic convoys.

Neither was Graf Spee a failure. Langsdorf made a critical mistake in going to Montivideo, that was what caused the loss of the ship.

I don't also for example regard Lutzow as a failure. Its results may not be spectacular but it was a revolutionary design - for 1931.

On the other hand it could be argued that Kormoran was a failure because it didn't survive its engagement with Sydney.

Karl, I feel all these judgements are subjective not objective. We all have our favourite ships based on our personal tastes and predjudices.

One of my favourite ships was Titanic. A failure? Well, it wasn't really intended for ramming icebergs!

So far as the Kriegsmarine is concerned my favourite vessels are the hilfskreuzer and also (not strictly Kriegsmarine) the blockade runners, indeed of the latter the Italians had some very fine, and in terms of mission objectives, successful ships.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao all,

well I do not like to give the ' black shirt' ( as on the Tour the France is the last rider on the standing usually ) to the most unsuccesful warship, there are so many that did nothing at all .

But I do like to give the 'Prize' for the most succesfull

To me there are no doubts,... the winner is ,.... the MAS 15 of Luigi Rizzo .

He sunk with that small warship 2 battleships, the WIEN in Trieste harbour and the SVENT ISTVAN on Premuda.

So, on 2 different actions and no damage suffered.

Is there anything comparable ..... I doubt

Ciao Antonio

[RF]

Another aspect might be the most unfortunate warship in history - I can think of the Wasa just after it was launched, unfortunately sunk by a gust of wind.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao Rf and all,

YES, you are right,. ..... but than many of the Netherland architects and Enginneers responsible for that sinking payied the price for it, as their heads were cutted off .

Sweden kingdom at that time was not known for the Nobel peace award.

Things change,... from time to time,....

Ciao Antonio

[RF]

Things change,... from time to time,....

Ciao Antonio :D

Funny you should say that.

I have heard of speculation that the reason Karlsruhe blew up in the South Atlantic in 1914 was due to a sailor having a crafty smoke in the ships ammunition magazine....

I find that difficult to believe, but if it is true....

[miro777]

hey...

to go to the least successful ship...

wouldn't that be the Tirpitz?

Lets leave out the old British BBs (Royal Oak, Revenge, etc)


or would it have been an Italian BB or the French BCs?
or the Japanese Yamato?

which one?

adios
miro

[RF]

hey...

to go to the least successful ship...

wouldn't that be the Tirpitz?

Lets leave out the old British BBs (Royal Oak, Revenge, etc)


or would it have been an Italian BB or the French BCs?
or the Japanese Yamato?

which one?

adios

All of the above ships had an impact during their lifespan, not specifically in engaging the enemy, but by their sheer existence, Tirpitz probably the greatest influence. In fact I would argue that the Japanese got more benefit from Tirpitz than the Germans.

Least successful, most unnoticed ships to their enemy- the German light cruisers of WW2. Except for their role in the invasion of Norway they went practically unnoticed.

[Captain Morgan]

Ulrich

The Gneisenau and Scharnhorst also proved to be quite formidable.

There has been a misunderstanding: I wasn´t referring to the WWII twins but to Admiral Spee´s Squadron at Falkland Islands 1914. I´m very aware of the success of the German raiders, specially those incredible auxiliary cruisers in the South Atlantic and Indic Oceans.

Spee's Squadron was successful at Coronel, but when facing a force of MUCH more powerful ships (HMS Invincible and HMS Inflexible) Spee was defeated. How does that make them unsuccessful? Spee could have succeeded if he had attacked the British while they were at anchor in Port Stanley. He could have Possibly cripped the Battlecruisers with the 8.2” guns and this would have allowed the squadron to escape, but he was going to be found eventually. Since they did not identify the ships a BC’s and ran, it became a loss at that point. When S & G turned to fight the Invicible and Inflexable with thier higher speed were able to stay out of range of S & G and do what they had been designed to do, defeat the German armored cruisers. Spee closing and attacking at Port Stanley may have still ended as a defeat, but it would have cost the British a much higher price than 10 killed. It’s not hard to hit ships at anchor, the IJN did it quite easily in the 1905 war.
Bismarck would have to be considered the same as them. It sank the Hood but was sunk by overwhelming forces.

[Captain Morgan]

I know more about the US Navy than any other, so:

USS Constitution.
CSA Virginia.
CSA Florida.
USS Monitor.
USS Kearsarge.
USS Olympia.
USS Oregon.
USS Washington.
USS Tang.

I imagine there are a few people who don't know how some of those ships distinguished themselves, or even when or in what period they fought. Significantly, most US citizens of the last few generations wouldn't know either.

Most US Combat in WWII and since has involved combinations of fleets such that individual ships have been unable to stand out.

Actually I would consider in Cival war times
CSS Alabama over Florida as she took 60 prizes compared to 37 for Florida
USS Hartford at least equal to Kearsarge as she fought as Flagship in New Orleans and Mobile Bay. The navy letting her rot away and sink at her pier in Norfolk as a RELIC in 1956 was terrible. She should have been preserved and moored at Annapolis
"Damn the Torpedos" says it all.

[RF]

Referring to the US Civil War I haven't heard of the CSA Florida either. I had thought that CSA Shanandoah was the next successful after CSA Alabama though most of her operations took place in ignorance of the war ending.

Is there any info anywhere on the CSA Florida?

[miro777]

hey...
i must agree wat RF said...
the German Light cruisers were rather unsuccessful...
i put the tripitz in there, because i assessed the successfullness in the action the vessel saw...
when u put in the impact the ship had on politics, etc...
then of course the Tirpitz was a successful ship...

I must also say that S + G were rather successful...
they went down against superior enemies and Graf Spee by taking the British on, gave his light cruiser Emden (if im not mistaken) a escape gap...

although a few month or weeks later, the Emden got sunk as well...

adios
miro

[RF]

hey...

I must also say that S + G were rather successful...
they went down against superior enemies and Graf Spee by taking the British on, gave his light cruiser Emden (if im not mistaken) a escape gap...

although a few month or weeks later, the Emden got sunk as well...

adios
miro

The Emden was detached from Spee in August 1914 for independent cruiser warfare in the Indian Ocean, as a diversion from Spees' eastwards movement in the Pacific, particulary as Konigsberg was the only other German warship in the Indian Ocean.
Emden was beached on Cocos-Keeling island after being intercepted by HMAS Sydney and pounded into a wreck some three weeks before the Falklands battle.

[miro777]

hey

yes...but it was Graf Spee who saved her those month...

or was it another ship?
Graf Spee detached a cruiser from his squadron, cuz he knew he will lose this battle...


adios
miro

[RF]

hey

yes...but it was Graf Spee who saved her those month...

or was it another ship?
Graf Spee detached a cruiser from his squadron, cuz he knew he will lose this battle...


adios
miro

Emden was despatched to create a diversion in the Indian Ocean while Spee attacked Tonga.
Spee had just lost his base at Tsingtao (which was beseiged by Japanese land forces under British command), so Spee intended to get back to Germany via Cape Horn and North Atlantic. He had plenty of supply ships plus friendly neutral ports like Valparaiso in Chile to enable him to do this.