Greatest warship of all time

[Bgile]

I don't see how the gun loading sequence could have come from an inactivated ship. They wouldn't have kept the shell and powder handling equipment maintained and operational.

[Terje Langoy]

Let me show you where this was quoted, Bgile:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Alabama_%28BB-60%29

Just scroll to the bottom of the page and see what's listed under "Trivia"
Apart from what's written here, I really can't comment whether the scene could have been filmed here or any place else. If you say this couldn't occur aboard the Alabama, then I take your word for it. American BB's is your field, not mine.

Very best regards

[Bgile]

Hi Terje,

The "Trivia" reference simply states the movie was filmed on Alabama. Maybe parts of it were. The only parts of the ship I could identify during the movie were outside, including firing the 20mm CIWS, which must have been done by the navy. Alabama never had that.

I know that when ships become museum pieces, the armament is rendered incapable of use. Of course, it's possible the part shown in the movie was kept functional, but I would imagine that would be too expensive for a museum. Truthfully, I can't say I'm positive of this, but Alabama has been a museum ship for quite a long time. It seems unlikely.

[Terje Langoy]

After the implosion in one of the barrels aboard the Iowa in 1989 (I think it was that year) she would perhaps not be a "favourable" candidate for the gun sequence in a movie from 1992. The Missouri and Wisconsin were both busy in the Gulf war around this time. Is the New Jersey a likely candidate? Wasn't she a fleet reserve around that time?

[Bgile]

Actually it probably could have been any of those ships. The Gulf war activity was for a relatively short period and it takes a long time to film a movie, so who knows? If the 20mm firing was done for the movie and not file footage, it had to be on an active ship. On the other hand, if they were going to use file footage you'd think they'd have used an actual 16" gun firing instead of the somewhat hokey one in the movie. The shell splash near the submarine was also of course much, much smaller than what would be caused by a real 16" shell.

[VeenenbergR]

The greatest Warship?

The ships which were spoken of by most sailors and aviators. The feared enemy.

There are 12 candidates:

- Göben (A nation choose for the Central powers almost winning the great war);
- Seydlitz (the hero of Jutland),
- lllustriuous class carriers which did the carnage at Taranto, hold at bay the mighty Littorio's and was at
one moment the only Allied carrier in the Pacific, sheer unsinkable carriers;
- Bismarck (beautiful liens, legendary, tragedy of stunning victory and then dooming bad-luck);
- Ark Royal: killer of the Bismarck;
- Scharnhorst (also very beautiful lines, delivered the most gallant fight of all wars); Deep sympathy for this victim of war.
- Fletcher class destroyers which saved the US carrier fleet from anhillation at Leyte;
- Kumano (the battered cruiser that would not sink);
- Tirpitz (the menace of the Artic: feared for many years by thousands of sailors, Queen of the North, no ship suffered
more attacks);
- Yamato (unparalled impressive and majestic);
- Musashi (mountain of fire; downed 18 out of hundreds);
- Enterprise (sailed most seamiles, carrier of carriers);

[RF]

The above 12 ships are all still objective, there is no definitive answer.

Personally, as in my original post to this thread, I would vote for Wolf.

I would also make an observation about Scharnhorst - the Scharnhorst of World War One I would regard as being more worthy of ''greatness'' than the namesake of twenty five years later. Why? Because Spee made better and more heroic use of his ships....

[sailor]

Greetings gentlemen, my first post! Truly an enjoyable and interesting forum.

I should qualify by stating that when I was a child I built a motorized plastic model of Hood and can attest that it is rather difficult to dominate the ocean tactically when your battlecruiser's length does not allow you to make a 180 degree turn because she becomes wedged bow and stern on each side of the bath!

Such is the extent of my experience of command at sea!

Anyway I think it is difficult to name the greatest warship so I also break up a few examples to ship type
Carrier- I feel Enterprise must take this one -a proud and lucky ship
BB/BC- Warspite. Arguably the most famous capital ship from the worlds oldest (grandest?) navy. Her exploits, length of service, tenacity, spirit?
- What other capital ship steamed up a narrow fjord and traded shells with tanks and field pieces? Can you imagine how the poor fellows in that tank felt when she came into view? Legendary. Jutland.

Yamato/Iowa class- Awesome platforms but didn't have the glorious ship to ship heavy gun engagements. Obviously the Iowas long and amazing carreers mustn't be overlooked. (sorry if I sound 'Reeman-esque!')

Bismarck. Well she killed my favourite ship! What a marvel of design, particularly with her North Atlantic bow. Balanced, powerful, the greatest capital ship of her time. Only one sortie, however...

Hood. 20 years as the symbol of the Royal Navy. She intimidated the world and projected power like no other before her. She was the Nimitz Class of the '20's. Flawed, worn out. Those pictures of her from above and slightly to the side which show how long, low and lean she was still thrill me. The only 'Real' sortie she went on was a death race. She couldn't catch Strasburg, Maybe that was for the best. Rather like a British automobile from the late seventies... We knew they didn't run properly, but we all wanted one!

Obviously there are many here that are far more learned than me. Call most of my criteria the 'intangible' if you will.

So I go nominate Warspite.

[Bgile]

Welcome!

[RF]

BB/BC- Warspite. Arguably the most famous capital ship from the worlds oldest (grandest?) navy. Her exploits, length of service, tenacity, spirit?
- What other capital ship steamed up a narrow fjord and traded shells with tanks and field pieces? Can you imagine how the poor fellows in that tank felt when she came into view? Legendary. Jutland.

So I go nominate Warspite.

Welcome to the forum sailor.

Without wishing to spoil your first post or be unduly critical, could I offer an observation.

At Narvik the captain of Warspite took his ship close inshore, to fire at several vessels armed with torpedoes. That captain was fortunate - only one German destroyer got into a torpedo firing position. Now suppose Warspite had been hit by a couple of torpedoes midships, stopped in the water long enough for more torpedoes to hit - and Warspite sank.
Now would that loss call for a court martial hearing? Would the raid on Narvik then be the same sort of blunder as that commited by Captain Burnett in Sydney, when he too approached injudiciously close to an enemy?

[Nearchus]

[
At Narvik the captain of Warspite took his ship close inshore, to fire at several vessels armed with torpedoes. That captain was fortunate - only one German destroyer got into a torpedo firing position. Now suppose Warspite had been hit by a couple of torpedoes midships, stopped in the water long enough for more torpedoes to hit - and Warspite sank.
Now would that loss call for a court martial hearing? Would the raid on Narvik then be the same sort of blunder as that commited by Captain Burnett in Sydney, when he too approached injudiciously close to an enemy?

Burnett’s action was a classic example of misjudgement (perhaps wanting to outdo his colleague Farncomb – a very capable officer – who had used a rather large number of 8” shells to sink a German supply ship at long range).

The use of WARSPITE at Narvik was a calculated risk with the dangers fully appreciated by the Vice Admiral whose flag was in WARSPITE and executed with as much caution as possible. The plan had been devised by the Operations Staff of the Home Fleet and WARSPITE was accompanied by a very strong destroyer force of 9 ships . The greatest danger to WARSPITE was the presence of U-boats in the fiords. Many German torpedoes were fired in this engagement but I do not know of any fired at WARSPITE.

In all such undertakings, “something must be left to chance”.

[RF]

Exactly - it was a calculated risk that came off. Indeed one of the U-boats was sunk as well, an unintended bonus.

[lwd]

...Now would that loss call for a court martial hearing? ...

Not sure if it was true in WWII or in the British navy but I'm pretty sure at one point it was SOP to hold a court martial whenever a ship was lost at least in the USN.

[Bgile]

...Now would that loss call for a court martial hearing? ...

Not sure if it was true in WWII or in the British navy but I'm pretty sure at one point it was SOP to hold a court martial whenever a ship was lost at least in the USN.

A court martial, or a Court of Inquiry? I suspect the latter was even done in WWII, but never the former unless the CoI reported willful negligence.

[lwd]

...Now would that loss call for a court martial hearing? ...

Not sure if it was true in WWII or in the British navy but I'm pretty sure at one point it was SOP to hold a court martial whenever a ship was lost at least in the USN.

A court martial, or a Court of Inquiry? I suspect the latter was even done in WWII, but never the former unless the CoI reported willful negligence.

At one time I think they were the same but when trying to research it nothing is turning up. I believe you are correct that by WWII it was a "Court of Inquiry". I may be remembering something I rad about RN practice in the Napoleonic wars too. I know I've read it just don't remember the details and of course just because I read it doesn't mean it's true.

*** edit for ***

Found a reference:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/comm ... s-of-ships
Looks like RN pracitce in the 19th century anyway.

This one demonstrates that it had gone out of fashion by 1940 as an automatic thing anyway:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/comm ... ts-martial

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander) A court-martial is not held of necessity and as a matter of course whenever one of His Majesty's ships is lost.

Furthermore wiki states at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court-martial

Additionally, most navies have a standard court martial which convenes whenever a ship is lost; this does not necessarily mean that the captain is suspected of wrongdoing, but merely that the circumstances surrounding the loss of the ship would be made part of the official record. Many ship captains will actually insist on a court-martial in such circumstances.

This may in part be using the more general defintion of a "court martial" ie a military court of which a "court of inquiry" might be considered a subset. Or not.