neil hilton wrote:I1. The ship has to get its crew safely back to shore every time, therefore if its is sunk it is unsuccessful. If you think that is harsh ask what the dead crew think of their sunken ship!
2. It has to contribute significantly to the nations maritime policy in peace and war. Sitting in harbour rusting away is a waste of money, swanning around the ocean using up fuel and food may be useful (patroling and such) but it isn't a significant contribution imo.
Remember, these are warships and the tax payers want their moneys worth out of them.
From the examples given I was wondering how the likes of SMS Emden, SMS Scharnhorst, SMS Moewe, SMS Wolf, SMS Seeadler would fare under this criteria.
Emden created a commerce raiding legend which caused the first Reichsmarine cruiser to be named after her, yet a large part of her crew were lost in the battle with HMAS Sydney and the mission did not have a material impact in the course of the war and certainly not a winning one.
SMS Scharnhorst lost her entire crew, yet created a legend that persists into the post WW2 Federal German Navy.
Moewe and Wolf weren't built as warships but created commerce raiding records for themselves representing remarkable feats of seamemship on the part of their commanders. They did far more than the Admiralstab could have expected from them. Yet they had no impact on the course of the war. Seeadler represents an even more extreme dichotomy, being lost in a maritime accident nothing to do with the Allies.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.