Preston: Worst warships of all time

Naval and military history books, recent releases, magazines, related documents, articles, etc.
Lutscha
Member
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Preston: Worst warships of all time

Postby Lutscha » Sat Jan 09, 2010 3:10 pm

You seem too imply that BS and VV were not considered then G&D say that the SoDak`s were the best treaty ships. That is not the case. The limit was simply ignored by the Italiens and Germans but they were still officially treaty ships and are therefore part of the comparison.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Preston: Worst warships of all time

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Sat Jan 09, 2010 3:49 pm

Lutscha,

That´s a matter of interpretation but it´s not relevant: neither Treaty ship was designed to beat a much heavier and armoured foe with better distributed gunnery and capable of sustaining much more damage than a lighter unit.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

Lutscha
Member
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Preston: Worst warships of all time

Postby Lutscha » Sat Jan 09, 2010 3:55 pm

I`m out, it`s hopeless.

yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Preston: Worst warships of all time

Postby yellowtail3 » Sat Jan 09, 2010 6:40 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:Lutscha,

That´s a matter of interpretation but it´s not relevant: neither Treaty ship was designed to beat a much heavier and armoured foe with better distributed gunnery and capable of sustaining much more damage than a lighter unit.


Sure they were - they were designed to defeat anything they came across, I think. And they had enough firepower to do it.

Better distributed gunnery... what the heck does that really mean? I understand you like the 4x2 gun arrangement... does it make a ship shoot better?

Some of that poor gunnery distribution, in Wilmington...
Attachments
Trip to BB-55 w Girls 117 [1024x768].JPG
Trip to BB-55 w Girls 117 [1024x768].JPG (131.62 KiB) Viewed 2419 times
Shift Colors... underway.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Preston: Worst warships of all time

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:06 pm

I envy people who can visit capital ships as often as some of you do, really. That photo is just awesome, beautifull. I´m still planning to go to New Jersey and visit the BB there... someday.

It´s a shame that some of the most important warships are sunk, but still, I´ll be happy with those the US has wisely preserved. Shame that there is not a KGV to visit, though.

Thanks for the photo, yellowtail3.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Preston: Worst warships of all time

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:11 pm

yellowtail3:

Some of that poor gunnery distribution, in Wilmington...


I never said nor imply that those turrets were an example of poor distribution: take a look to my posts and you will not find such an afirmation. I just said that the displacement limited Treaty battleships were not designed to beat bigger, stronger armoured, battleships. The North Cals and South Daks were "just" 35,000 tons, which is why the USN worried to built much bigger ships as the 50K ton Iowas or the even bigger 70K tons Montanas. If they were not required then they (USN) would have never worried in built them in the first place. I´m not trying to offend no one here, is an historical and proven fact!

Best regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Preston: Worst warships of all time

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:25 pm

Lutscha:

I`m out, it`s hopeless.


I´m really not trying to give you a particular hard time. In order to address this I will like to point out one single feature, as per example, of this issue of designs.


North Carolina and South Dakota battleships had, in their armour scheme, an upper armoured deck of some 38 mm (if I recall well). It´s function was to prevent AP bombs and shells to penetrate the lower main armoured deck and detonate into the ship´s vitals by affecting the device trajectory and producing the detonation in the space between the upper and main armoured decks. So, there is a 38 mm upper armoured deck. Now, the designers of the original Treaty battleships considered that the upper armoured deck (38mm) was good enough for the original armament this ship´s had: 14" shells as a result of the rule of thumb (at least in the North Carolina). Now, the South Dakota class also has the same arragement which "must" mean that they were sure enough their ship was well protected for their own 16" guns.

Bismarck, under the same premise, came with an upper armoured deck of 50 mm. Bismarck was armed with 15" guns. In accordance to German designers in order for this deck to work properly they needed of a 50 mm thick plate. That means one of two things (or both):

1. Bismarck´s batteries could have penetrated the upper armoured deck of the USN Treaty BBs which would have failed of pre detonating or afecting the trajectory of the German 15" shells.

2. Bismarck´s upper armoured deck, thicker than that of the contenders, would have succesfully pre detonated the enemy´s shells and/or affected the shell trajectory. Bismarck´s vitals would have been safe of USN 16" shells.

There is enough literature on this simple example. That´s is why I´m saying a bigger and better armoured ship could not be defeated, as a per se event as you people suggest, by a lighter ship.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Preston: Worst warships of all time

Postby yellowtail3 » Sat Jan 09, 2010 10:08 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:I´m not trying to offend no one here, is an historical and proven fact!

Best regards,


not the least bit of offense taken...
Shift Colors... underway.

yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Preston: Worst warships of all time

Postby yellowtail3 » Sat Jan 09, 2010 10:11 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:I envy people who can visit capital ships as often as some of you do, really. That photo is just awesome, beautifull. I´m still planning to go to New Jersey and visit the BB there... someday.

Unfortunately, that means you'll have to drive into Camden, which is distinctly unpleasant...
It´s a shame that some of the most important warships are sunk, but still, I´ll be happy with those the US has wisely preserved. Shame that there is not a KGV to visit, though.

Thanks for the photo, yellowtail3.

I've always wished the USN has managed to cripple Yamato before she got underway in the spring of '45, and so capture her four months later... we'd have a lot more photos, and she'd have made a great prize/museum in San Francisco...

PM w/photo album on the way...
Shift Colors... underway.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Preston: Worst warships of all time

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Sun Jan 10, 2010 2:08 am

yellowtail3:

Unfortunately, that means you'll have to drive into Camden, which is distinctly unpleasant...


I have been told that before. But also that there is a way around that is much, much better. Is that so?

Is that Camden the same place where a battle of the Independence War was fought between Cornwallis and Gates?
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

Streona

Re: Preston: Worst warships of all time

Postby Streona » Wed Aug 15, 2012 12:11 am

You;re right about the Kriegsmarine destroyers. 5.9 inch guns are too heavy for a destroyer as it made them top heavy & bad sea keepers not to mention the strain put on the deck.
HMS Mermaid was obsolete before it was built and the battleship Vanguard was built with left over 15 inch guns from WW1. Apparently they had to counter flood compartments to stop her capsizing every time they fired them - not to mention the damage done to the 40mm STAAG anti aircraft gun on the B mounting.

Djoser
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:45 am
Location: Key West Florida USA

Re: Preston: Worst warships of all time

Postby Djoser » Fri Sep 21, 2012 11:53 pm

Wow didn't know that about Vanguard (necessity for counterflooding when firing main armament). I've never been impressed with Vanguard anyway, neither in terms of looks nor in terms of offensive armament. The WW I era 15" was a very fine gun to be sure, but by late WW II there were much better guns at sea.

Speaking of appearance, the South Dakotas were among the ugliest battleships ever built, in my opinion. I wouldn't put them in with the very worst warships, even granted the SD's abysmal performance at 2nd Guadalcanal--during which she managed to hit exactly nothing, despite Captain Gatch's claims to have sunk half the Japanese navy in subsequent press releases. The SD indeed earned the sobriquet 'Shitty Dick' during this battle, having been bailed out of disaster by a roughly equivalent ship with a much better trained crew.

I'd have to agree that Furious, et al were definitely to be ranked with the worst warships of all time, even considering their presumed function as support vessels for a Baltic Sea invasion of Germany. They were useless for any other purpose (except maybe conversion to CVs lol); and there were better ships for that purpose, as has been pointed out.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Preston: Worst warships of all time

Postby dunmunro » Tue Sep 25, 2012 4:11 pm

Streona wrote: Apparently they had to counter flood compartments to stop her capsizing every time they fired them - not to mention the damage done to the 40mm STAAG anti aircraft gun on the B mounting.


You're joking, right? :lol:

User avatar
RNfanDan
Supporter
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:06 pm
Location: USA

Re: Preston: Worst warships of all time

Postby RNfanDan » Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:23 pm

dunmunro wrote:
Streona wrote: Apparently they had to counter flood compartments to stop her capsizing every time they fired them - not to mention the damage done to the 40mm STAAG anti aircraft gun on the B mounting.


You're joking, right? :lol:


Well, he DID qualify that with "apparently"...and it is well-known that Vanguard was so technologically advanced above decks, they forgot all about making her a good gunnery platform below decks.... :whistle: :wink:
Image


Return to “Books and Reference”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest