The most successful and most unsuccessful Warships

General naval discussions that don't fit within any specific time period or cover several issues.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7507
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: The most successful and most unsuccessful Warships

Postby RF » Fri Nov 14, 2014 5:39 pm

aurora wrote:; but place that ignomy on HMS Glorious-she had achieved little in the war and was sunk by S&G off Norway-having left the scene of battle -her Captain determined to have his Commander Air court martialled.


That farce could have come straight out of Monty Pythons Flying Circus.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 683
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: The most successful and most unsuccessful Warships

Postby aurora » Fri Nov 14, 2014 6:11 pm

Perfectly put RF!!!

Operation ALPHABET, the evacuation of all British and Allied forces from Norway, was carried out from the 5th to the 8th of June 1940. Two troop convoys were formed, the first (Group I) sailing on the 7th and the second (Group II), sailing on the 8th. Both convoys reached the UK safely. During the night of 7/8 June, the carriers Ark Royal and Glorious were operating in company north of Andenes Point, Lofoten Islands. Glorious had flown on 20 RAF fighters for transport to the UK and also had on board 10 fighters and 5 torpedo bombers of the Fleet Air Arm.
1 Ark Royal and Glorious were to have formed part of the escort of the Group II convoy, but in the early hours of the 8th, Glorious made a signal to Vice Admiral Aircraft Carriers (VAA) in Ark Royal, asking permission to proceed independently to Scapa.
2 The request was approved and Glorious and her two destroyers parted company with Ark Royal at 0253 in position 70°17'N, 14°10'E, thereafter proceeding on course 250° at 22 knots. Later that morning Glorious reduced speed to 17 knots and, in an attempt to confuse enemy submarines, commenced zigzag.

By 1600/8 the British ships had altered course to 205° for Scapa. Glorious was in the fourth degree of readiness, i.e. at cruising stations, steaming at 17 knots on 12 of her 18 boilers. No aircraft were ranged on deck, nor were any in the air. Ardent and Acasta were disposed two cables (440 meters) on either bow. None of the ships were fitted with radar and the carrier had no lookout in her crow's nest. The sea was calm, with wind force 2-3 (approximately 6.5 knots) from the northwest, sea temperature 34°F (I°C), visibility unlimited.
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call

Jim

User avatar
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 683
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: The most successful and most unsuccessful Warships

Postby aurora » Fri Nov 14, 2014 6:54 pm

If the Captain of HMS Glorious did not go down with his ship, he should have been keel-hauled and hung from the yard arm. There is absolutely no excuse for what happened. The Captain abandoned his duty station- so that he could personally participate in the courts martial of one of his senior officers (Comm.Air) for insubordination. No CAP was sent up despite the fact that it was a cloudless summer day with calm seas. More inexcusable was the fact that RN knew the course plotted to return to England was in an Area frequented by German capital ships. No radio alert was sent- meaning those who survived the battle- drowned afterwards. :kaput:
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call

Jim

User avatar
neil hilton
Senior Member
Posts: 334
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:31 pm

Re: The most successful and most unsuccessful Warships

Postby neil hilton » Mon Dec 08, 2014 12:16 pm

I suppose this is dependant on your definition of unsuccessful. Maybe somebody should start a new thread on 'most farcical and/or negligent sinkings'
Veni, vidi, verrimus!
I came, I saw, I swept the floor!

User avatar
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 683
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: The most successful and most unsuccessful Warships

Postby aurora » Mon Dec 08, 2014 1:11 pm

Quote Neil
"First and foremost a ship is a ship. The sea is the real enemy and every time you go to sea you are risking your life, if your ship for whatever reason can't bring you back to shore safely it has failed in its primary task".

I think HMS Glorious fits your criterion Neil and as such is unsuccessful
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call

Jim

Garyt
Senior Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: The most successful and most unsuccessful Warships

Postby Garyt » Wed Dec 10, 2014 1:05 am

Unsucessful AND unlucky - The Taiho. Japan's brand spanking new carrier, a Shokaku in essence with an armored flight deck. Sunk by a couple of torpedoes that really should not have sunk her, but ruptured AVGAS lines causes the ship to blow up a bit later. Bad damage control, not to mention an open hanger construction might have saved her.

Maybe the Shinano should be thrown in this category too, sister of the Musahi that took roughly 18 torpedoes and 20 bombs before going down gets sunk by 3 torpedoes. Horrid damage control and a ship setting sail that was not really ready to go to sea was the issue.

Sucessful - I'd have to throw the Shokaku and Zuikaku in here. Did a lot of damage to the Allied fleets, took a lot of damage themselves but kept on returning to the fight until sunk late war.

Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: The most successful and most unsuccessful Warships

Postby Steve Crandell » Wed Dec 10, 2014 4:26 am

Garyt wrote:Maybe the Shinano should be thrown in this category too, sister of the Musahi that took roughly 18 torpedoes and 20 bombs before going down gets sunk by 3 torpedoes. Horrid damage control and a ship setting sail that was not really ready to go to sea was the issue.


4 Torpedoes, in quick succession on the same side of the ship, each carrying a 668 lb Torpex warhead. While it's true that she wasn't combat ready in any sense of the word, I doubt any ship of that era would have survived that.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7507
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: The most successful and most unsuccessful Warships

Postby RF » Wed Dec 10, 2014 9:22 am

Bismarck would have, along with Tirpitz.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Garyt
Senior Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: The most successful and most unsuccessful Warships

Postby Garyt » Wed Dec 10, 2014 6:13 pm

4 Torpedoes, in quick succession on the same side of the ship, each carrying a 668 lb Torpex warhead. While it's true that she wasn't combat ready in any sense of the word, I doubt any ship of that era would have survived that.


Well, the Navy should have been using the Mod 10 version of the Mark 13 by the time of the attack on the Yamato, which carries 606 pounds of Torpex, roughly equal to the 668 pounds.

If we eliminate the bomb hits, let's just look at the torpedo hits the Yamato took prior to sinking according to Garzke and Dulin:

At 12:45 a single torpedo struck Yamato far forward on her port side
Shortly afterward, up to three more torpedoes struck Yamato. Two impacts, on the port side near the engine room and on one of the boiler rooms, are confirmed; the third is disputed but is regarded by Garzke and Dulin as probable because it would explain the reported flooding in Yamato '​s auxiliary steering room. The attack ended around 12:47, leaving the battleship listing 5–6° to port; counterflooding—deliberately flooding compartments on the other side of the ship—reduced the list to 1°.

The second attack started just before 13:00. Three or four torpedoes struck the battleship on the port side, and one to starboard. Three hits, close together on the port side, are confirmed: one struck a fireroom that had been hit earlier, one impacted a different fireroom, and the third hit the hull adjacent to a previously damaged outboard engine room, increasing the water that had already been flowing into that space and possibly causing flooding in nearby locations. The fourth, unconfirmed, hit may have struck aft of the third; Garzke and Dulin believe this would explain the rapid flooding that reportedly occurred in that location.[49] This attack left Yamato in a perilous position, listing 15–18° to port. Counterflooding all of the remaining starboard void spaces lessened this to 10°, but further correction would have required either repairs or flooding the starboard engine and fire rooms. Although the battleship was in no danger of sinking at this point, the list meant that the main battery was unable to fire and her maximum speed was limited to 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph).
Yamato photographed during the battle by an aircraft from USS Yorktown (CV-10). The battleship is on fire and visibly listing to port.
The second attack started just before 13:00. In a coordinated strike, dive bombers flew high overhead to begin their runs while torpedo bombers approached from all directions at just above sea level. Overwhelmed by the number of targets, the battleship's anti-aircraft guns were less than effective, and the Japanese tried desperate measures to break up the attack. Yamato '​s main guns were loaded with Beehive shells fused to explode one second after firing—a mere 1,000 m (3,300 ft) from the ship—but this had little effect. Three or four torpedoes struck the battleship on the port side, and one to starboard. Three hits, close together on the port side, are confirmed: one struck a fireroom that had been hit earlier, one impacted a different fireroom, and the third hit the hull adjacent to a previously damaged outboard engine room, increasing the water that had already been flowing into that space and possibly causing flooding in nearby locations. The fourth, unconfirmed, hit may have struck aft of the third; Garzke and Dulin believe this would explain the rapid flooding that reportedly occurred in that location.[49] This attack left Yamato in a perilous position, listing 15–18° to port. Counterflooding all of the remaining starboard void spaces lessened this to 10°, but further correction would have required either repairs or flooding the starboard engine and fire rooms. Although the battleship was in no danger of sinking at this point, the list meant that the main battery was unable to fire and her maximum speed was limited to 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph).

The third and most damaging attack developed at about 13:40. Most serious were four more torpedo impacts. Three exploded on the port side, increasing water intake into the port inner engine room and flooding yet another fireroom and the steering gear room. With the auxiliary steering room already underwater, the ship lost all maneuverability and became stuck in a starboard turn. The fourth torpedo most likely hit the starboard outer engine room which, along with three other rooms on the starboard side, was in the process of being counterflooded to reduce the port list.


Over a few hours, 11-12 torpedo hits, mostly to the port side. I might add that they came in bunches of about 4 at a time - similar to what the Shinano was hit by one time. My understanding is that the torpedo bombers focused their attack primarily on the port side to be more effective since the Musahi took almost 20 torpedoes to bring down. ANd even if we look at the Yamato, having one side targeted, it took 3 groups of 3-4 torpedoes to bring her down. After the second volley of torpedoes, the ship was slowed, but not in any danger of sinking.

I'm not going to get into a hypothetical Bismarck scenario, as there seem to be a lot of pro and con emotions about that ship on this forum. But I am comparing the Shinano to here sister ships, which of course is the best comparison. Apparently her captain was not overly worried by the 4 torpedo hits until he realized the water tight doors were not functioning.

But 4 torpedoes, even on one side and in rapid sucession should not have been enough to bring down one of these behemouths.

User avatar
neil hilton
Senior Member
Posts: 334
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:31 pm

Re: The most successful and most unsuccessful Warships

Postby neil hilton » Thu Dec 18, 2014 9:14 pm

Yamato was sunk by 12" airborne torpedoes and shinano was sunk by 21" submarine torpedoes, massive difference!!!
Veni, vidi, verrimus!
I came, I saw, I swept the floor!

User avatar
neil hilton
Senior Member
Posts: 334
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:31 pm

Re: The most successful and most unsuccessful Warships

Postby neil hilton » Thu Dec 18, 2014 9:22 pm

aurora wrote:Quote Neil
"First and foremost a ship is a ship. The sea is the real enemy and every time you go to sea you are risking your life, if your ship for whatever reason can't bring you back to shore safely it has failed in its primary task".

I think HMS Glorious fits your criterion Neil and as such is unsuccessful


Totally agree, glorious was unsuccessful as a ship. My post to which you replied was a comment on the farcical or negligent nature of the glorious sinking.
However it does raise the question as whether you can blame the ships design as unsuccessful when the sinking is a result of negligence by the crew. It is also an interesting way of determining a ships success or not.
Veni, vidi, verrimus!
I came, I saw, I swept the floor!

Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: The most successful and most unsuccessful Warships

Postby Steve Crandell » Thu Dec 18, 2014 10:55 pm

neil hilton wrote:Yamato was sunk by 12" airborne torpedoes and shinano was sunk by 21" submarine torpedoes, massive difference!!!


Yamato was sunk by 22.4" Mark 13 torpedoes with warheads containing about 600 lb HBX.

User avatar
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 683
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: The most successful and most unsuccessful Warships

Postby aurora » Fri Dec 19, 2014 8:15 am

MOST SUCCESSFUL


USS Enterprise (CV-6), was the seventh U.S. Navy vessel to bear the name. Colloquially referred to as the "Big E", she was the sixth aircraft carrier of the United States Navy. A Yorktown-class carrier, she was launched in 1936 and was one of only three American carriers commissioned prior to World War II to survive the war (the others being Saratoga and Ranger). She participated in more major actions of the war against Japan than any other US ship.

These actions included the Battle of Midway, the Battle of the Eastern Solomons, the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands, various other air-sea engagements during the Guadalcanal Campaign, the Battle of the Philippine Sea, and the Battle of Leyte Gulf. On three separate occasions during the Pacific War, the Japanese announced that she had been sunk in battle, earning her the name "The Grey Ghost". Enterprise earned 20 battle stars, the most for any U.S. warship in World War II and became the most decorated US ship of World War II.
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call

Jim

User avatar
neil hilton
Senior Member
Posts: 334
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:31 pm

Re: The most successful and most unsuccessful Warships

Postby neil hilton » Fri Dec 26, 2014 4:59 pm

Steve Crandell wrote:
neil hilton wrote:Yamato was sunk by 12" airborne torpedoes and shinano was sunk by 21" submarine torpedoes, massive difference!!!


Yamato was sunk by 22.4" Mark 13 torpedoes with warheads containing about 600 lb HBX.


Sorry for the typo, I meant 22inch not 12 inch. I didn't realise the warheads were roughly the same size though, that is a big warhead for an airborne torp and a small warhead for a sub torp.
Veni, vidi, verrimus!
I came, I saw, I swept the floor!

Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: The most successful and most unsuccessful Warships

Postby Steve Crandell » Fri Dec 26, 2014 11:45 pm

neil hilton wrote:
Steve Crandell wrote:
neil hilton wrote:Yamato was sunk by 12" airborne torpedoes and shinano was sunk by 21" submarine torpedoes, massive difference!!!


Yamato was sunk by 22.4" Mark 13 torpedoes with warheads containing about 600 lb HBX.


Sorry for the typo, I meant 22inch not 12 inch. I didn't realise the warheads were roughly the same size though, that is a big warhead for an airborne torp and a small warhead for a sub torp.


It was about the same size as submarine torpedo warheads. The Mark 14 torpedo contained about 640 lb explosive, and the modern Mark 48 ADCAP has a warhead about the same weight.


Return to “Naval History in General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest