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
dfrighini
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 5:16 pm
Location: Pirmasens, Germany
Contact:

Re: The most successful and most unsuccessful Warships

Post by dfrighini »

RF wrote:Oberwarrior, regarding U-boats what you say is being wise after the event.

At the initial time of development - late 1930's - Germany had a naval agreement with Britain which permitted construction of submarines for the first time, and then at first up to 35% British submarine strength and later amended to 100%. Now British submarine strength at that time was not very great, but still substantial enough to fully occupy Germany's then resources in U-boat development legally (namely within Treaty limits). The KM at that time had little up to date submarine expertise and only a small cadre of submariners. It takes years to build up a mass submarine force in terms of crew training and construction of submarines, and indeed reliable torpedoes...... The Germans couldn't really have built much faster, and to try to do so would have set the alarm bells ringing in Britain and other countries.

Now with hindsight what Doenitz and the KM should have done in those formulative years was to have put far more effort into the development of a true submarine, a boat that could move fast submerged, and dive deeper. If such efforts had led to the depolyment of the Electroboot in 1943 instead of 1945, they could have altered the course of the war - especially if the submerged rocket launching subs had been developed, giving Germany the capability of bombing the USA.
On the contrary the benefit of hind-sight is derived from the German Navies experiences during World War One. Had the Germans commenced unrestricted u-boat warfare throughout World War One they might have won (although I do note the introduction of the convoy system in 1917 had a drastic effect on u-boat loses and merchant ship sinkings). Furthermore throughout the interwar years the Germans developed technologies in secrete, using offshore companies, completing contracts for foreign powers.

There was a certain level of alarm within the British establishment, although this was about the development of the luftwaffe and the wehrmacht. Development of u-boat technologies probably would not have caused anymore alarm that what already pre-existed. The Royal Navy had a attitude that because the u-boats had been defeated in World War One through the use of the convoy system (and because ASDIC had been developed at the end of World War One) that u-boat warfare would not be successful a second time around. However certain elements within the kriegsmarine (namely Doenitz and his staff) had learned from there mistakes in World War One (same with das heer), but they were not listened too, and given the proper economic support, Doenitz had been calling for more u-boats long before the war started.

Regarding naval treaties, everyone (signed or not signed) was looking for loop-holes and ways of circumventing the treaties. A good example is the different between the Royal Navy and the United States Navy and how they counted capital ship tonnage. Yes breaking the treaties would war a political mess, but I don't think anyone would be in a position to do much about it, similar to various situations today. Furthermore there was a large school-of-thought back then that German had been unfairly punished by treaties post-World War One.
Dominic Righini-Brand
dfrighini@me.com
User avatar
dfrighini
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 5:16 pm
Location: Pirmasens, Germany
Contact:

Re: The most successful and most unsuccessful Warships

Post by dfrighini »

RF wrote:Oberwarrior, the issue of Scharnhorst as a succesful ship has been looked at on numerous threads throughout the history of this site.

Scharnhorst is ''succesful'' only in the context of the records of othe KM regular warships lack of success. In terms of Admiral Webers' memorandum prior to WW2 starting Scharnhorst was moderately succesful, but proved to be costly in terms of what economists would call ''opportunity cost'' namely that the resources - materials, shipyards, labour and crews - put into operating Scharnhorst could have been put to more effective use eleswhere, and produced better results.

Scharnhorst, like Prinz Eugen, was a lucky ship rather than a succesful one. Its achievements came when paired up with Gneisenau, so the opportunity cost is effectively doubled up. In terms of sinkings, we have a half share in sinking an AMC, an aircraft carrier and its two escorting destroyers, plus merchant ships on Operation Juno and Operation Berlin.
Apart from that, as you say Scharnhorst achieved a substantial tying down of Allied military forces in attempting the ships destruction. But even that didn't necessarily benefit the Germans - because they had to tie down additional resources to protect the ship, particulary anti-aircraft guns and Luftwaffe forces, to protect the ship when they could have been deployed more effectively eleswhere.

No, the most succesful KM surface warship was the Admiral Scheer, in terms of results set against the cost in resources in having the ship. And the most succesful KM surface ships were the cheapest to construct - the hilfskreuzer. They sank far more than what the regular warships managed, and over a far wider area.
My apologizes if KMS Scharnhorst has already been discussed in this forum thread or others. I read though this read before posting and saw lots about Scharnhorst from World War One, but did not notice anything and KMS Scharnhorst.

I agree with you about the success of KMS Admiral Sheer, indeed I had forgotten about this ship, which had quite a dramatic career. Regarding the hilfskreuzer's, I also agree, but feel it illustrated my point about the u-boats (being economically viable) rather well. We should not forget these ships had good commanders when successful.

I'm not really sure if Prinz Eugen and Scharnhorst can be compared, as I don't think the Royal Navy was overly concerned about this ship. Whereas the Scharnhorst they considered a dangerous battleship (or battle cruiser in some circles), always trying to keeping enough resources on hand to deal with the situation.
Dominic Righini-Brand
dfrighini@me.com
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: The most successful and most unsuccessful Warships

Post by RF »

Oberwarrior wrote:

I'm not really sure if Prinz Eugen and Scharnhorst can be compared, as I don't think the Royal Navy was overly concerned about this ship. Whereas the Scharnhorst they considered a dangerous battleship (or battle cruiser in some circles), always trying to keeping enough resources on hand to deal with the situation.
Prinz Eugen was considered by Tovey to be dangerous enough for a strong cruiser escort being given to Victorious for her airstrike on Bismarck, after PE had passed out of Lutjens command.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: The most successful and most unsuccessful Warships

Post by RF »

Oberwarrior wrote:
On the contrary the benefit of hind-sight is derived from the German Navies experiences during World War One. Had the Germans commenced unrestricted u-boat warfare throughout World War One they might have won
This really depends on how you read the overall strategy. The Germans tried unrestricted U-boat warfare in 1915, resulting in the sinking of the Lusitania; they dropped it because of the growing hostile atitude of the United States.

Had the Germans acted as you surmise things would have certainly been tougher for Britain in terms of food supplies, but Britain was far less dependent on oil than in WW2 because of the predominance of home produced coal as the primary fuel. The flip side of the coin is US full involvement in WW1 long before Russia quits, and the US would be able to send troops escorted by its navy direct to France, unlike as in the middle of WW2. The U-boat might defeat Britain, but not France and certainly not the USA. That would be the correct strategic lesson.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
dfrighini
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 5:16 pm
Location: Pirmasens, Germany
Contact:

Re: The most successful and most unsuccessful Warships

Post by dfrighini »

RF wrote:
Oberwarrior wrote:
On the contrary the benefit of hind-sight is derived from the German Navies experiences during World War One. Had the Germans commenced unrestricted u-boat warfare throughout World War One they might have won
This really depends on how you read the overall strategy. The Germans tried unrestricted U-boat warfare in 1915, resulting in the sinking of the Lusitania; they dropped it because of the growing hostile atitude of the United States.

Had the Germans acted as you surmise things would have certainly been tougher for Britain in terms of food supplies, but Britain was far less dependent on oil than in WW2 because of the predominance of home produced coal as the primary fuel. The flip side of the coin is US full involvement in WW1 long before Russia quits, and the US would be able to send troops escorted by its navy direct to France, unlike as in the middle of WW2. The U-boat might defeat Britain, but not France and certainly not the USA. That would be the correct strategic lesson.
I would certainly agree about Britain's having a fuel advantage during World War One due to our coal reserves. Ironically coal today could become important again with dwindling oil reserves. However I think Britain came a lot closer to defeat due to unrestricted u-boat warfare during World War One than it did during World war Two, possibly even a question of weeks.

I'm not sure if I want to get into another debate about conspiracy theories, but Lusitania was sunk in questionable circumstances. Certainly Lusitania cause major diplomatic problems, but it was not until April 1917 that America severed diplomatic relations with Germany, due in-part to their unrestricted u-boat warfare campaign. My question is, had the German been fully committed to u-boat warfare, them things might (and I stress might) have turned out differently. When the German began there 1917 u-boat campaign relations were already strained. The failure to win a strategic victory at Jutland (although probably not possible) forced German naval commanders to understand the value of unrestricted u-boat warfare, however this lesson seems to have been forgotten during the interwar years. I think it was possible for the u-boats to defeat Britain in World War One had they acted decisively, and early in the war, when they finally decided to act, it was already five-to-midnight. My point is history then repeated itself (as it often does). In World War Two it was not until 1942/1943 that the German started to take u-boat warfare seriously. The first part of the war being fought with a relatively small number of u-boats with experienced crews and officers.

Notably in both wars German either started unrestricted u-boat warfare or gave the u-boat arm the proper support and economic resources after it became apparent that capital ships would not win the war, or play a major role. The mistake is understandable in World War One, however World War Two, with the benefit of hindsight?

Technically Germany's World War One u-boat blockage of the British isles was no worse than Britain's own blockage of Germany (and German colonial possessions)(which ultimately starved Germany), the only difference being the use of u-boats which were governed by old out-of-date prize rules. The effect of a blockage is the same, whatever means you use to accomplish it. However u-boats generated bad press.
Dominic Righini-Brand
dfrighini@me.com
User avatar
dfrighini
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 5:16 pm
Location: Pirmasens, Germany
Contact:

Re: The most successful and most unsuccessful Warships

Post by dfrighini »

RF wrote:
Oberwarrior wrote:

I'm not really sure if Prinz Eugen and Scharnhorst can be compared, as I don't think the Royal Navy was overly concerned about this ship. Whereas the Scharnhorst they considered a dangerous battleship (or battle cruiser in some circles), always trying to keeping enough resources on hand to deal with the situation.
Prinz Eugen was considered by Tovey to be dangerous enough for a strong cruiser escort being given to Victorious for her airstrike on Bismarck, after PE had passed out of Lutjens command.
Post the Glorious disaster I imagine all Royal Navy aircraft carriers were given an assorted escort of destroyers and cruisers.
Dominic Righini-Brand
dfrighini@me.com
madmike
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:53 pm

Re: The most successful and most unsuccessful Warships

Post by madmike »

now this is a tough one, what do we class as successful and what isnt, NO i cant pick one ship as the most successful or as a failure. TOO many to pick from. i was just wondering what BATTLESHIP did the USS Missouri engaged.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: The most successful and most unsuccessful Warships

Post by RF »

Oberwarrior wrote: Post the Glorious disaster I imagine all Royal Navy aircraft carriers were given an assorted escort of destroyers and cruisers.
Yes indeed. The point of my comment was that Victorious was given a reinforced cruiser screen as escort.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: The most successful and most unsuccessful Warships

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

I just bought me a 1:350 model of the russian pre dreadnought "Oriol" which took part in the Tsushima Straits combat. According to Preston this can be regarded as the worst battleship ever built. When I start researching on it I found myself with this top heavy ship, originally designed by the french and then a complete class built upon it. Interesting.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: The most successful and most unsuccessful Warships

Post by RF »

Designed by the French.......was the design sold as a dummy?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: The most successful and most unsuccessful Warships

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

RF,

I haven't found enough material on this, but it seems that those bathtubs were top heavy and really unstable. The Japanese, however, capture it and use withing their own fleet until.... the WASHINGTON TREATY. In it they, cleverly, accepted to scrap some tonnage and choosed for that purpose this and other captured ships. :whistle:

Regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
skipperbob
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 6:07 am

Re: The most successful and most unsuccessful Warships

Post by skipperbob »

Most succesful warship has to the Enterprise CV6. Twenty battlestars, responsible for destroying over nine hundred Japanese aircraft, sank three aircraft carriers and thousands of tons of other warships and merchant ships, held the line as the only carrier during the decisive stages of Guadalcanl. No other warship in history comes close to that record.

Most unsuccessful, I vote for Yamato. Her only chance to engage the US Navy was at Leyte Gulf and she did virtually nothing. Huge waste of resources and was finally thrown away in a futile suicide sortie at Okinawa.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: The most successful and most unsuccessful Warships

Post by RF »

But at that stage in the war not much in the way of an alternative use was available. At least Yamato did give service for at least the two years prior, even if appearing to achieve little concrete.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: The most successful and most unsuccessful Warships

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Yamato could have been used, with lethal effects, in Guadalcanal.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: The most successful and most unsuccessful Warships

Post by RF »

With proper co-ordinated support.

I might also add what would have happened if Yamato in January 1942 had been deployed on a mission to operate for a few weeks of the US western coast.... perhaps shelling a few shore targets....
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Post Reply