The most successful and most unsuccessful Warships

[Laurenz]

Its difficult to decide your aim here.
My most beloved books are -Seeherrschaft- written by an austrian guy, Helmut Pemsel.
So many similar fortunes are mentioned there, where whole new fleets are destroyed by storm or the enemy directly they left port or while building on the shipsyard.
Tirpitz' fortune belong more to the german fatalism than the ability of the ship.
You can compare it to the situation of the english fleet, when de Ruyter engaged the thames river.
Maybe the most succsessful ship was Emden. Here maybe not the result counted, more the way von Müller acted.
But there are many ships as Nelson's victory who did quit a good job.

i have got a question: Except the beginning of Guadalcanal and to be a known target for japanese pilots at pearl harbour, american bigships were ever involved directly in seabattles?

Kind regards,
L.

[marcelo_malara]

have got a question: Except the beginning of Guadalcanal and to be a known target for japanese pilots at pearl harbour, american bigships were ever involved directly in seabattles?

In the Battle of Surigao, there was a one-sided, night fighting, between American radar-equipped BB and Fuso and Yamashiro. Obviously, the Japanese ships were sunk, no damage to Americans´.

[marcelo_malara]

Don´t bother. It was target practice. The American BB were not even seen. The most remarkable fact about that battle is that Fuso and Yamashiro were the last BB sunk by gunfire and not by aircraft.

[longreach]

Hi everyone,Bgile your list of successful US ships is a good one, but i think you missed one.the USS Yorktown,,,,,she fought bravely at the battle of the coral sea(suffering 5 x 500lbs bombs down her flightdeck),her crew managed to not only save her,but got her back to pearl harbour and then you yanks put her back together and get her out in time for her to fight at midway(were she was sunk)Fighting to the end.BLOODY GOOD SHIP,,,,AND A EVEN BETTER CREW.


LEST WE FORGET.

[lwd]

Don´t bother. It was target practice. The American BB were not even seen. The most remarkable fact about that battle is that Fuso and Yamashiro were the last BB sunk by gunfire and not by aircraft.

Actually Fuso hardly qualifies as sunk by gunfire. Torpedos had already broken her into two parts before she came under fire from anything larger than a DD. Some cruisers did fire at one or perhaps both pieces in the mop up. Yamashiro was smothered. Most of the US BBs got first salvo straddles and probably hits she had also taken at least one torp already I believe.

[lwd]

If you look at most succesful in terms of damage and effct vs size a couple of smaller US combatants are in the running.

USS England for one.
I'm blanking on the name right now but a single US DD is given credit for sinking Fuso.
The Taffy escorts at Leyte also deserve at least an honerable mention.

[Bgile]

Most of the US BBs got first salvo straddles and probably hits she had also taken at least one torp already I believe.

I don't think this is entirely correct. IIRC Colorado straddled on first salvo and maybe one or two others, but most of them didn't have the latest FC radar and had to use the splashes from the others to get firing data.

Still, it is true that Yamashiro was simply smothered by gunfire.

[lwd]

Most of the US BBs got first salvo straddles and probably hits she had also taken at least one torp already I believe.

I don't think this is entirely correct. IIRC Colorado straddled on first salvo and maybe one or two others, but most of them didn't have the latest FC radar and had to use the splashes from the others to get firing data.

....

Your statement is not inconsistent with mine. Note that 3 of the US BB's had mark 8s and 3 Mk3s. The Mk 8 equipped ships opened fire first. Some what later Maryland opened fire and then Mississippi got off one salvo before the cease fire order. Some details are given at:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-079.htm
it does not however address who got first salvo stradles. I know I've read that 1 US BB did and thought that most of the others did but will have to look for a site.

[Bgile]

lwd,

My only problem with your statement was that you said "most" of the US battleships achieved first round straddles. I think Colorado did and I think that was not unusual with mk 8 radar assisted FC systems.

[longreach]

hi captain morgan,NOT to be to rude,,,,BUT there is NO SUB in the world that can do 30+knots SILENTLY,,,,,the US navys ohio class subs are the most silent ever built,and even they have troubles being silent above ABOUT 15 knots,,,,,,BUT on saying that todays nuclear subs are SCARY BASTARDS!!!!!! and are one of the most deadly class of ship to ever Built,,

YOU want to find a Ohio class sub??????? look for that BLOODY blackhole in the ocean,(BEST OF LUCK) i dont think anyone has been able to track US missile subs in deep water for any serious length of time.......THE BASTARDS ARE JUST TO SLIPPERY!!!!!!
BUT i must admit I do LIKE the improved Los Angeles class attack boats, lmao!

[Bgile]

I'd be surprised if the Seawolf class wasn't the quietest nuclear submarines now.

[lwd]

lwd,

My only problem with your statement was that you said "most" of the US battleships achieved first round straddles. I think Colorado did and I think that was not unusual with mk 8 radar assisted FC systems.

I may have got a bit exhuberant there. However of the 5 that fired 3 were Mk 8 ships and I think I heard the Mississipi got a stradle although it may have been very hard to tell by that point in time. Somewhere I read more details on this so until I find more info consider my "most" as possibly/probably excessive.

[dfrighini]

This is a very difficult question to answer, as different ships (and countries) were faced with different circumstances (historical, geographic and political), so comparing ships from different navies could be near impossible. For example when comparing any British warship with an German warship from World War II one would have to take into account not only the cost factors (both human and economic) of the ship in question but also the corresponding geographic, historic and political backgrounds of the opposing nations.

If I was to pick two ships which I believe could be defined as successful I would pick HMS Warspite (as mentioned by Karl Heidenreich) and KMS Scharnhorst.

Regarding HMS Warspite...

Probably my favourite British warship from the World War I & II. HMS Warspite represents the vanguard of service, she served in two wars, fought in numerous engagements, including Jutland, The Second Battle of Narvik, and The Battle of Cape Matapan. It was only after sustaining battle damage from a FX 1400 guided bomb that her career was curtailed. However she still served in the D-Day landings, providing fire support. Out of all the Royal Navy warships constructed during the twentieth century, Warspite stands out, as being economically viable. This point is illustrated by the major cuts in warship numbers post World War I.

Regarding KMS Scharnhorst...

I'm surprised nobody (correct me if I'm wrong) has mentioned KMS Scharnhorst. Frankly given the historical precedence (World War I) the Germans should have concentrated on u-boat construction and development during the interwar years (especially after they usurped the Treaty of Versailles). However out of all the Kriegsmarine warship Scharnhorst was probably the most successful, although her success should not be simply defined in numbers of ships sunk. Scharnhorst represented value for money because of the warfare the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force had to inflict against her in-order to bring about her sinking at North Cape. Comparatively speaking she had a long and illustrious career when compared to other Kriegsmarine warships, she took part in numerous operations, and tied down immense British resources over a prolonged period of time. Furthermore unlike other Kriegsmarine assets (namely Turpitz) she was used properly, for what she was designed for, commerce warfare. If there was a flaw, it was the concept of engaging enemy commerce with a battleship, when u-boats are both cheaper and more effective.

PS: I appreciate I'm joining this debate a little late, last post circa 2007.

[RF]

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.

[RF]

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.