Greatest warship of all time

[Terje Langoy]

Since there’s a poll upon the greatest battles and Admirals, why not add your opinions upon the greatest ship of all time? With enough suggestions maybe we could make a poll upon this as well? I’ll just kick off with my favourite and hopefully you’ll add yours.

The Seydlitz – She was a shell magnet that just wouldn’t go down! According to what I know from hopefully reliable sources, she was partially credited along with the Derfflinger for sinking the Queen Mary. She sustained more hits than any other ship during the battle. She participated throughout the battle despite of an early torpedo impact and limped back to port with over 5000 tons of seawater confined in her hull.

If my info upon the Seydlitz is wrong, please let me know.

Regards

[miro777]

greatest ship?

Bismarck

[RF]

I don't necessarily think that the ''greatest'' has to be the biggest or the most powerful, just as in boxing the heavyweights are not necessarily the best. In fact some of the best fighters are at the lowest weights, particulary between two skilled fighters who each don't have a knockout punch and have to use boxing skill rather than brute force to win.

Same I think applies to ships.

On that basis I would pick the WW1 raider Wolf. Her epic voyage of 15 months was unprecedented for modern times, absolutely cut off from home, and managing to get back home again through a very tight blockade.

[Gary]

Scharnhorst......................and I'm not being biased..............Honest

[RF]

Scharnhorst......................and I'm not being biased..............Honest :wink:

An armed merchant cruiser, an aircraft carrier caught with its pants down, a couple of destroyers one of whom torpedoes you, and some barely armed merchant ships.... then clobbered by Norfolk, shelled by DOY and finished off by eleven torpedoes when her designers said she could take fourteen. I don't think the Kriegsmarine actually got value for money out of Scharnhorst. As Richard Garrett records Scharnhorst (and Gneisenau) only targeted vessels much weaker than themselves and spent most of their careers evading equal or superior forces.
Pound for pound (to use a boxing phrase) I think the hilfskreuzer put Scharnhorst and all the big ships (except Bismarck) to shame. They weren't designed to fight real warships or even armed merchant cruisers, yet when they had to fight they gave generally better than they got - unless completely outgunned by the opposition, as Pinguin and Atlantis were.

[miro777]

hey...
na na na...
i dissagree...
Scharnhorst had a great life...
she was more successful than any other capital surface ship of the KM....

she sank her tonnage and her endfight.

come on...in a snowstorm, with two battle groups surrounding you....left with confusing orders from your base, fighting for your life...
thats something big!...it was not fair...
Scharnhorst lost against superior enemies...

adios
miro

[Gary]

Richard Garrett records Scharnhorst (and Gneisenau) only targeted vessels much weaker than themselves and spent most of their careers evading equal or superior forces.


But Thats what Raeder wanted.
No warrior really wants to engage equal or superior forces.
You are supposed to overwhelm an enemy, gang up on them, smash them - thats how you be a great warrior in wartime.

No commander wants you to fight fair.
Besides, the Germans couldnt fight fair.................they didnt have the numbers to stand toe to toe with the RN.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Bismarck, Hood, Bismarck, Hood, Bismarck, Hood, Bismarck, Hood, Bismarck, Hood,Bismarck, Hood, Bismarck, Hood, Bismarck, Hood, Bismarck, Hood, Bismarck, Hood,Bismarck, Hood, Bismarck, Hood, Bismarck, Hood, Bismarck, Hood, Bismarck, Hood,Bismarck, Hood, Bismarck, Hood, Bismarck, Hood, Bismarck, Hood, Bismarck, Hood,

I can assure you I´m not a fanatic.

[RF]

hey...
na na na...

she was more successful than any other capital surface ship of the KM....


adios
miro

Which ship sank the Hood in a two against ''one and a quarter'' unfair fight?

[RF]

Richard Garrett records Scharnhorst (and Gneisenau) only targeted vessels much weaker than themselves and spent most of their careers evading equal or superior forces.


But Thats what Raeder wanted.
No warrior really wants to engage equal or superior forces.
You are supposed to overwhelm an enemy, gang up on them, smash them - thats how you be a great warrior in wartime.

No commander wants you to fight fair.
Besides, the Germans couldnt fight fair.................they didnt have the numbers to stand toe to toe with the RN.

Kahler in Thor fought one on one against not one but three British armed merchant cruisers, one after the other. The result, in boxing terminology, was two wins on points and a third by a knockout.

I could also mention Detmers in Kormoran, on the grounds that it was Captain Burnetts fault that he was caught pants down when Detmers opened fire.

Several blockade runners and also Doggerbank, could have blown superior forces out of the water at close range had they been properly armed hilfskreuzer.

Pleading that you are outnumbered doesn't wash, its what you do with the forces you have. The German surface warships were each at least the equal of one of their class opposite numbers.
Even Raeder disagreed with Scharnhorst and Gneisenau running away from Newcastle immediately after sinking Rawalpindi.

[RF]

hey...
Scharnhorst lost against superior enemies...

adios
miro

So did Bismarck.

Admiral Bey in Scharnhorst, a destroyer specialist, should have kept company with his destroyers who could have screened Scharnhorst from the Allied destroyers and give Scharnhorst a chance. OK it could have led to the loss of the destroyers as well, but it was I think a chance worth taking.

Scharnhorst was a fine ship. But warships aren't there to look pretty, they are there to fight. Scharnhorst was well equipped to fight but wasn't used to full potential. If Raeder had a free hand, gave his commanders free rein, then a bold commander the calibre of Nelson, Tromp or John Paul Jones (of the US war of independence, not Led Zep's bass player!) would really have justified Scharnhorsts existence. But Scharnhorst was a prestige object, they couldn't risk it in battle. In war you cannot afford to be indecisive. Thats why Scharnhorst was lost, thats why the Heer and Waffen SS were prevented from winning the land war.

[miro777]

hey....
i agree with all your points...
and yes...Bismarck did win over Hood...
yet...i have heard in several books that the Scharnhorst was considered more successful than the short termed Bismarck...(by the German High Command)

Besides, the Germans couldnt fight fair.................

I do think that is rather offensive....

adios
miro

[Karl Heidenreich]

Miro:

Quote:
Besides, the Germans couldnt fight fair.................


I do think that is rather offensive....

adios
miro

Miro, I don´t think Gary meant that the Germans didn´t fight fair but that they couldn´t afford to fight fair in order that the KM was so small in comparison to the RN.

Best regards

[KB]

Ther is no doubt that the greatest warship was Prinz Eugen. The amount of conflicts that ship went through and only came out with minor damage was astonishing. It even sailed through the English channel with Scharnhorst and came out with a few minor hits nothing that couldn't be repaired quickly. Even after the war it survived as a training ship for many years to the US Navy.
No doubt that Prinz Eugen was the greates ever warship.

[RF]

hey....
iyet...i have heard in several books that the Scharnhorst was considered more successful than the short termed Bismarck...(by the German High Command)


adios
miro

Scharnhorst was considered a ''lucky'' ship, probably in comparison with Gneisenau. Prinz Eugen, in retrospect, was also considered lucky, after all it survived the war.....