Preston: Worst warships of all time

Naval and military history books, recent releases, magazines, related documents, articles, etc.
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 » Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:07 am

dupe post
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 » Thu Jan 07, 2010 3:02 pm

Bgile:

I certainly agree, since the US ships in question weren't even in commission then.


That´s precisely the point. But still we have comparisons done, in some prestigious websites, of early 1941 firing control systems and AA batteries with 1944-45 RDFC and upgraded AA systems. Can´t be done and judgement on those must be done taking that into account, which often is not done.

Besides - the US fast battleships had plenty of other virtues, apart from the radar(s) they carried.


Yes? According to leading and expert authors that statement is not entirely true. At least the armor belt and ATS of South Dakota Class is not highly regarded which, regretably, extends to the Iowa Class, which is why the US Navy designers were convinced that a new and different class of Battleship was needed: the USS Montana, that differs quite a bit from these so called "fast battleships".
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 » Thu Jan 07, 2010 4:08 pm

'experts', huh?
Last edited by yellowtail3 on Thu Jan 07, 2010 4:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 » Thu Jan 07, 2010 4:33 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:
Besides - the US fast battleships had plenty of other virtues, apart from the radar(s) they carried.

Yes?

Yes.
Karl Heidenreich wrote:According to leading and expert authors that statement is not entirely true.
Sure it's true - entirely true. Anyone with a good understanding of written English will be able to confirm that for you. Ask around.

do you want a list of fast battleship virtues? Just off the top of my head:
- they all had reliable engines and good range - in the case of the Iowas, very long range (which also means, the ability to run at high speed longer than opponent).
- They were well-subdivided, with lots of STS armor utilized in bulkheads.
- They had very large (16") guns with well-designed AP shells substantially heavier than anything except Yamato's 18 inchers.
- They had a very effective secondary battery - LOTS of 5"/38s, a good gun with a high rate of fire.
- Their smaller AA battery - 40mm Bofors equipped with RPC and a bunch of 20mm Oerlikons - was an excellent & effective AA setup - were there any better?
- They were also pretty well armored.
- They were pretty ships, esp. the North Carolina

There's your quick List of Virtues, Karl, bolstering the statement I made, which you thought false.
Shift Colors... underway.

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

Re: Preston: Worst warships of all time

Postby Lutscha » Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:39 pm

Maybe you should reread G&D US Battleships Page 96, Karl, but since I have mentioned that twice before, I don't think you'll ever do that, maybe they are not considered experts in this special case...

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 » Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:21 pm

Lutscha:

Maybe you should reread G&D US Battleships Page 96, Karl, but since I have mentioned that twice before, I don't think you'll ever do that, maybe they are not considered experts in this special case...


I was about to buy it this Christmas but things got in my way. So, it is not that I have not read it because I don´t want but because I don´t have the damn book. From G&D I have the Axis Battleship edition.

Now..

I do agree with some of your points, as follows:

they all had reliable engines and good range - in the case of the Iowas, very long range (which also means, the ability to run at high speed longer than opponent). - Agreed.
- They were well-subdivided, with lots of STS armor utilized in bulkheads. - They also have a very narrow beam, as with Richelieu, that compromises it´s structural integrity in case of torpedo attack. This was demostrated by the caisson test done by the USN when the South Dak´s were being built.
- They had very large (16") guns with well-designed AP shells substantially heavier than anything except Yamato's 18 inchers. - Agreed. Also their triple disposition is not as well suited to work as a battery as with four twin mountings. The only reason this triple arragement was taken was in order to save weight.
- They had a very effective secondary battery - LOTS of 5"/38s, a good gun with a high rate of fire. - Agreed.
- Their smaller AA battery - 40mm Bofors equipped with RPC and a bunch of 20mm Oerlikons - was an excellent & effective AA setup - were there any better?- I tend to agree with this and I do say that it seems there is no any better. In this respect it must be said that the AA setup of the USN was pretty better than anything other navies came with, with the exception of post 1941 RN.
- They were also pretty well armored. I don´t think they were better armoured than heavier ships. Remember they were limited to 35 K tons and with the adition of the 16" artillery a lot was sacrificied. We have covered, in several threads for example, the thin upper armoured deck which is not very likely to perform as well as Bismarck´s 50mm upper deck. I see no evidence of special protection here in comparison to other heavier contemporaries.
- They were pretty ships, esp. the North Carolina - I do like the North Carolina and the Iowa profiles. As a matter of fact the first 1:350 model I made for my collection was a Tamiya USS MIssouri with her camouflage. Beautifull ship despite her strait amidship beam which made her look strange. From I have seen the Montanas would have been more pretty than her predecesors.

yellowtail3:

'experts', huh?


Yeah, Friedman, Raven, Roberts, Garzke, Dullin, Skulsky, Taylor, Koop, etc. etc. We can mention, also, Mullenheim Rechberg and his account of the Bismarck´s sortie.
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 » Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:Lutscha:
Maybe you should reread G&D US Battleships Page 96, Karl, but since I have mentioned that twice before, I don't think you'll ever do that, maybe they are not considered experts in this special case...

... it is not that I have not read it because I don´t want but because I don´t have the damn book.


Here you go, Karl - http://tinyurl.com/ylepqzh
Karl Heidenreich wrote:Now.. I do agree with some of your points, as follows:
- They had very large (16") guns with well-designed AP shells substantially heavier than anything except Yamato's 18 inchers. - Agreed. Also their triple disposition is not as well suited to work as a battery as with four twin mountings. The only reason this triple arragement was taken was in order to save weight.

Not as well suited to work? What does that mean? Did they have some problems functioning?

but this is the wrong thread for this sort of thing - this is for discussing the worst warships of all time, not the best.
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 » Thu Jan 07, 2010 7:50 pm

yellowtail3:

but this is the wrong thread for this sort of thing - this is for discussing the worst warships of all time, not the best.


No, it is the correct thread to do it. We started discussing the consideration of South Dak as amongst the worst because of the Second Guadalcanal performance. I never mentioned North Carolina nor Iowa. For the best battleship thread then we can go to Battleship Top Ten or Bismarck´s contemporaries.

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

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Preston: Worst warships of all time

Postby Bgile » Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:07 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:They also have a very narrow beam, as with Richelieu, that compromises it´s structural integrity in case of torpedo attack. This was demostrated by the caisson test done by the USN when the South Dak´s were being built.


The modern US battleships have greater beam than KGV, which you don't seem to criticize nearly as much as US ships. Richelieu's beam is greater still, only 1m less than that of Bismarck.

... in this respect it must be said that the AA setup of the USN was pretty better than anything other navies came with, with the exception of post 1941 RN.


I think you will find that US late war AA installations are better than those of UK ships in general.

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 » Fri Jan 08, 2010 12:25 am

Bgile:

I think you will find that US late war AA installations are better than those of UK ships in general.


You are right. I didn´t explain myself well in my answer: my intention is to say that, both, USN and RN AA systems were good equivalents post 1941.

The modern US battleships have greater beam than KGV, which you don't seem to criticize nearly as much as US ships. Richelieu's beam is greater still, only 1m less than that of Bismarck.


I tend to agree in what refers with the North Carolina Class because the exterior sloped main belt didn´t compromise the structure of the ship, which is why Friedman didn´t criticize it. That´s not the case with the South Dak and Iowa classes, however. Richelieu case is particular but will need my bibliography to bring up the case and, again, I´m at Trinidad and far from my books. So, I imagine that for the time being cannot build anything in that respect.

Best regards,

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

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Preston: Worst warships of all time

Postby lwd » Fri Jan 08, 2010 4:38 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:yellowtail3:

but this is the wrong thread for this sort of thing - this is for discussing the worst warships of all time, not the best.


No, it is the correct thread to do it. We started discussing the consideration of South Dak as amongst the worst because of the Second Guadalcanal performance. ...,

Simply put. NO. Her performance at 2nd Guadalcanal cannot be parlayed into ranking her as one of the "worst warsips of all time" by any reasonable person.

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 » Fri Jan 08, 2010 7:21 pm

lwd:


Simply put. NO. Her performance at 2nd Guadalcanal cannot be parlayed into ranking her as one of the "worst warsips of all time" by any reasonable person.


I do imagine that your idea of a resonable person is just you. If it´s so then your answer started bad.

Then, using your own logic then battleships must be given a "certain combat experience" to improve their "learning curve". In that case if South Dak cannot be rated, or can be well rated what can we expect from Bismarck? In her first shots of her operational career she sunk a Battlecruiser and damaged a Battleship and was only sunk in the crossfire of two main capital units plus several heavy cruisers. That ain´t that bad using your own parameters. Having survived, as South Dak did, she could have done better hence her crew would have been more experienced and with a much better learning curve.

This argument is invalid, of course, as any pretence to ignore what happened at Second Guadalcanal which by all means showed a terrible performance of South Dak´s gunery, damage control and combat worthiness.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Preston: Worst warships of all time

Postby lwd » Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:01 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:lwd:


Simply put. NO. Her performance at 2nd Guadalcanal cannot be parlayed into ranking her as one of the "worst warsips of all time" by any reasonable person.


I do imagine that your idea of a resonable person is just you. If it´s so then your answer started bad.

Then, using your own logic then battleships must be given a "certain combat experience" to improve their "learning curve". In that case if South Dak cannot be rated, or can be well rated what can we expect from Bismarck? In her first shots of her operational career she sunk a Battlecruiser and damaged a Battleship and was only sunk in the crossfire of two main capital units plus several heavy cruisers. That ain´t that bad using your own parameters. Having survived, as South Dak did, she could have done better hence her crew would have been more experienced and with a much better learning curve.

This argument is invalid, of course, as any pretence to ignore what happened at Second Guadalcanal which by all means showed a terrible performance of South Dak´s gunery, damage control and combat worthiness.

We have in these comparisons for the most part talked about the ships and not the crews. Certainly the crew of the Bismarck performed well at Denmark Straits however that doesn't mean Bismarck was the best ship of all time or that Hood was the worst. Similarly SoDak cannot reasonably be rated the worst simply because a minor electrical problem which was corrected shortly there after resulted in a near disaster because one of her crew made a poor choice in solutions. It also would not contribute anything to naming her the best as well. If you were making arguments of that nature for instance Mutsu should be far ahead of SoDak in the worst list but I would argue there also there was not that much of a problem with the design of the ship at least from what is known. Another case where a crew mans actions had an even more severe effect on his ship would be the Lexington who was lost due to said crew error.

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 12:34 pm

How about degrading Yamato and Musashi due to Shinano`s horrible damage control? Or is this case of an completely untrained crew (and still incomplete watertight integrity) not comparable to a green crew and an electrical problem as far as criticising the entire class is concerned? Both problems were due to crew error/lack of training and both could be corrected without any major changes to the ship.

Yes, Shinano was a carrier, but her TDS was the same.

Btw, now you can read what G&D have to say in link posted above.

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 2:36 pm

Lutscha:

Btw, now you can read what G&D have to say in link posted above.


Yes, I appreciatte, specially because G&D is a very good source and I really enjoyed the book on Axis Battleships. The authors are very clear, and specific, in stating how these ships were the best of those in the 35,000 ton limit which I don´t think it´s an interpretation problem there. They are being compared with vessels such a the Rodney and Richelieu which is fair. KGV was slightly heavier but can be compared to them also and is handicapped by it´s 14" guns against the USN 16". The reference to the carrier forces also goes in the lines of what I have been saying all along in several threads about the USN doctrine having suceesfully used these units to the appropiate ends. About the armored conning tower it´s good that they have it that way, specially after South Dakota being nailed at Guadalacanal, which I imagine the inapropiate 14" shells of elderly Kirishima and the cruisers didn´t produce more damage on it than they could have, the compartment arragement deficiencies were issues that we can find in other designs (I personally preferred the North Carolina general design over that of South Dakota, but that´s me) and the final sentence is quite complicated to give proper interpretation. It says that those classes were the best displacement limited ones (on one hand) and that only the Yamato Class could have deal with them succesfully. It contradicts some statements done by G&D in other books and the statements of other authors such as Friedman and Raven & Roberts. But I do grant that the North Carolina vessels would have been formidable contenders for heavier and battle worthy units as the Littorio or Bismarck Classes. Obvioulsy the mention that the Yamatos would certainly beat them is correct because those Japanase behemoths could have beaten any battleship in any navy inventory with the exception of the never built Montanas.

Need the book, anyway.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill


Return to “Books and Reference”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests