this is not my list mind you :)

this is the list that was broadcasted on channel 112 here in good 'ole South Jersey the other day (The Military Channel). now, i have seen a few of these programs that they've put together and always wanted to start a thread here in the History forum about them. this time, i had a pencil and paper handy and jotted down the winners. call me a geek. i don't care :p however, i found the list interesting...

be advised that there were five (5) factors that the panel (composed of what the program described as audience polls, historian polls, and naval architect polls) took into consideration:
- fear factor
- fire power
- protection
- innovation
- service length

i'm going to list each entry seperately. check it out...

#10
Admiral Class Battlecruiser: better known as the HMS Hood BC of WW1 and WW2 fame
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/HMS_Hood_early_1930s.jpg

#9
Deutschland Class Pocket Battleship: better known as the Admiral Graf Spee
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ac/Admiral_Graf_Spee_Cruising.jpg

#8
Essex Class Aircraft Carrier
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0e/Uss_essex_cv-9.jpg

#7
Bismarck Class Battleship: aka the Bismarck
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/German_Battleship_Bismarck_firing_on_PoW.jpg

#6
North Carolina Class Battleship
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/46/Uss_north_carolina_bb.jpg

#5
Fletcher Class Destroyer
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/USS_Fletcher%3B0544514.jpg

#4
Ticonderoga Class Guided Missile Cruiser
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e3/Ticonderoga_class_crusier.jpg

#3
Queen Elizabeth Class Battleship
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fe/HMS_Warspite_%28Queen_Elizabeth-class_battleship%29.jpg

#2
Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/USS_Nimitz_1997.jpg

#1
Iowa Class Battleship
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/af/Iowa-41.JPG

I know that HMS Hood really caught the imagination of the British and American public, but I'm not sure it deserves to be on the list because its armour plating was non existent. The battlecruiser was an attempt by the Royal Navy to create a ship with the firepower of a battleship and the greater speed of the cruiser, which meant cutting back on the armour plating. I get the impression that the Admiralty hadn't really thought this one through.

Did the listmakers deliberatly restrict themselves to surface ships? If not, I would like to nominate the Royal Navy Vanguard class nuclear submarines. They carry Britain's (American built) nuclear deterrant, which gives them maximum points for fear factor and firepower. For protection, they mostly rely on stealth; they never need refuelling, are self sufficient for water and air, and only need to surface to take on food, once every six months or so. The exact service life is unknown, but 30-40 years is a reasonable estimate before the class is retired.

As for innovation, British submarine technology is roughly on a par with that of America due to the 'special relationship'.

Gallienus,

i thought the exact same thing about the Hood.

i don't recall the program even mentioning subs. however, i would think that they weren't even on the list.

the Vanguards are definitely nice. i've even built of few of them in my TCW mod ;)

How could HMS Dreadnought not even make the list?

It was the most powerful, innovative, feared and influential warship of the 20th Century by a clear margin. I would think it would be a certainty for the top spot by any reasoned commentator.

After she was launched all other existing ships were dismissively called "Pre-Dreadnoughts". What other vessel can claim to have that kind of impact?

yes Hotpoint. you're right.

my guess is that the Dreadnought class was outdone not long after her launching. however, she would definitely be on my own personal list.

How could HMS Dreadnought not even make the list?

It was the most powerful, innovative, feared and influential warship of the 20th Century by a clear margin. I would think it would be a certainty for the top spot by any reasoned commentator.

After she was launched all other existing ships were dismissively called "Pre-Dreadnoughts". What other vessel can claim to have that kind of impact?This was my thought. Dreadnought made every other battleship in the world obsolete.

What's so special about the North Carolina class battleships?

Why didn't the Type VII U-boat and USS George Washington (SSBN 598), the first nuclear powered missile submarine, make the list?

The producers seem to have overlooked the most important critera - influence on warfare and history. Also for a list of the most important warships of all time, the list doesn't seem to have any wooden ships.

My list would include:
Type VII U-Boat
Gato Class Submarine
Viking Longship
Greek Bireme

More than that, the Top 10 Naval Vessels of All Time all seem to be 20th Century.

I personally have problems in this list with the USS North Carolina and HMS Hood. Also the factors used are some of dubious content for such a poll. The other 8 ships above, the HMS Vanguard class, type VII uboats should be added at first to a pool of ships important enough to add. Also the Greek trireme should be added, the Spanish ship of the line Santissima Trinidad, HMS Warrior, Gauloise, the German SMS König Wilhelm and the HMS Dreadnought and perhaps also Yamato.
Some additional informations to the ships not very known:
1. Santissima Trinidad was a Spanish ship of the line. It was the most powerful warship of the late 18th and early 19th century. The British did fear it so much that after conquering it at Trafalgar they burnt it!
2. HMS Warrior/ Gauloise were the first armoured frigates making the last step to armoured and engined ships.
3. SMS König Wilhelm was a German armoured frigate of the Franco German war. She was the biggest warship built until that date and had a tremendous firepower. The whole French navy feared that ship so much that the German North sea coast was saved from bombardments.
More infos: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=158523

I suggest at first to make a pool of ships and find criteria for a list.

Adler

i know. i know. :lol: i didn't make this list! :p

it was seen on a tv program that i reckon A.) only included surface vessels and B.) was relegated solely to 20th century ships.

however, Adler raises a good point. maybe we could come up with our own damn list! :smug:

i also tend to agree that the NC class BB maybe shouldn't be on the list. iirc, the commentators in the program (naval historians and architects primarily) noted that the NC class was crucial in the Pacific and was a backbone of many convoys. this may not warrant a 'Top 10' finish though imho. anyway - here's what wiki says about the NC class:

The United States Navy built two North Carolina-class battleships:

USS North Carolina (BB-55)
USS Washington (BB-56)
North Carolina and her sister ship Washington were the first Post-Washington Treaty battleships as well as the first of the fast battleships. Before this class, the United States Navy favored staying power and fire power over speed. The North Carolina class had a speed of 27 knots versus the 21 knots of the pre-treaty Colorado Class. The class was completely different from all previous US battleships, and set the pattern for all subsequent vessels (as well as the reconstructions of vessels wrecked at Pearl Harbor), with a massive columnar mast replacing the familiar "cage" mast, main armament in two triple turrets forward, one aft, and dual-purpose secondaries along the sides of the superstructure. The most important advance of the class was one that could not be seen from outside: The integration of the first computer at sea, the Mark I fire control computer. The analog fire control system allowed the ship to maintain a constant fire control solution even when steaming at full speed and performing drastic evasive turns.

The ships were originally conceived as main battleships, but like their successors, the South Dakota and Iowa classes, they spent most of their operational lives as escorts for the fast carrier task force.


Armarment
9 x 16-inch guns
20 x 5-inch guns
16 x 28 mm machine guns

I watched that program, it was quite interesting.

the funny thing is that i've plugged every single one of these ships into C3C at one point or another :p

If we're going back in history some way I'd offer CSS Alabama. Between her and just a few other Confederate commerce raiders she wreaked havoc on the Union merchant fleet until she was finally caught and sunk off france in 1864. Didn't serve very long but she did earn herself a considerable reputation in that time.

Ok. Leaving aside the whole "No pre-XXth century" ridiculousness, the fact that they managed to miss the Dreadnought, and have the Iowa at #1 while having the Yamato nowhere near the list at all speaks pretty poorly of their ranking system (I suppose the Yamato got screwed on Service Length).

And what of the Tripitz? A ship that anyone on the north seas were scared of, and required specially made bombs(not specially made anti-shipping, just specially made) flown by lancasters to take out.

i can't argue w/ the Iowa as no. 1. all 4 ships of this class are beasts and the modernization that the NJ rec'd back in the 80s cemented her legacy i reckon.

a case could be made for the Tirpitz i guess.

I think the Tirpitz as Bismarck class ship, although slightly larger, is already in the poll. However I would rate the Bismarck class higher indeed. IMO only Yamato and USS Iowa classes could deal with her, that means having good chances to win.
Also I think service length is not important. Otherwise ships like the aviso SMS Grille (1856- 1919) would be also on the list, if the other points were half fulfilled.

Adler

Tirpitz could win the award for the "ship most used as target practice without first being decomissioned"

Ok. Leaving aside the whole "No pre-XXth century" ridiculousness, the fact that they managed to miss the Dreadnought, and have the Iowa at #1 while having the Yamato nowhere near the list at all speaks pretty poorly of their ranking system (I suppose the Yamato got screwed on Service Length).

From what I've read the Yamato's fire control system was poor compared to the American battleships. It also had less range than the Iowa, and an inferior anti-aircraft armament.

This site (http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm) compares seven of the most well-known World War II battleships. I don't know enough about the ships themselves to evaluate his conclusions, but it does have a lot of statistics.

The Yamato was most likely inferior to the Iowa (unfortunately for us battleships addicts, that was never tested out in real life :(), but it would have been far more than a match for any of the other battleships and battlecruisers on the list.

The Bismark or N-Car (both of which are on the list) would have needed a shipload of luck to win a one-on-one against the Yamato (or Musashi)'s superb firepower.

1. Santissima Trinidad was a Spanish ship of the line. It was the most powerful warship of the late 18th and early 19th century. The British did fear it so much that after conquering it at Trafalgar they burnt it! Not quite.

Santísima Trinidad's great size and position immediately ahead of the fleet flagship Bucentaure made her a target for the British fleet, and she came under concentrated attack by several ships. She lost her mainmast and eventually surrendered to HMS Neptune. She was taken in tow by HMS Prince, but sank in a storm that blew up the day after the battle.

There's the further point that why would the British fear a ship that they had captured?

While I was surprised to see Dreadnought not on the list, my guess is that it didn't make it because it was obsolete pretty quickly once the Admiralty started pushing out the potential of that style of ship. Think of Dreadnought as a release title for a new video game system -- it's great at first but quickly ends up in the bargain bin once the developers start taking full advantage of the system's power.

As for the North Carolina, it did have a distinguished history in the Pacific Theatre:


South Pacific campaigns, 1942–43
North Carolina and the Navy began the long island-hopping campaign for victory over the Japanese by landing Marines on Guadalcanal and Tulagi 7 August 1942. After screening Enterprise (CV-6) in the Air Support Force for the invasion, North Carolina guarded the carrier during operations protecting supply and communication lines southeast of the Solomons. Enemy carriers were located 24 August, and the Battle of the Eastern Solomons erupted. The Americans struck first, sinking carrier Ryujo; Japanese retaliation came as bombers and torpedo planes, covered by fighters, roared in on Enterprise and North Carolina. In an 8-minute action, North Carolina shot down between 7 and 14 enemy aircraft, her gunners standing to their guns despite the jarring detonation of 7 near-misses. One man was killed by a strafer, but the ship was undamaged. The protection North Carolina could offer Enterprise was limited as the speedier carrier drew ahead of her. Enterprise took three direct hits while her aircraft severely damaged sea-plane carrier Chitose and hit other Japanese ships. Since the Japanese lost about 100 aircraft in this action, the United States won control of the air and averted a threatened Japanese reinforcement of Guadalcanal.

North Carolina now gave her strength to protect Saratoga (CV-3). Twice during the following weeks of support to marines ashore on Guadalcanal, North Carolina was attacked by Japanese submarines. On 6 September, she maneuvered successfully, dodging a torpedo which passed 300 yards off the port beam. Nine days later, on 15 September, sailing with Wasp (CV-7) and Hornet (CV-8), North Carolina took a torpedo portside, 20 feet below her waterline, and 6 of her men were killed (from a torpedo salvo of I-19, that sunk Wasp). But skillful damage control by her crew and the excellence of her construction prevented disaster; a 5.6 degree list was righted in as many minutes, and she maintained her station in a formation at 26 knots.

After repairs at Pearl Harbor, North Carolina screened Enterprise and Saratoga and covered supply and troop movements in the Solomons for much of the next year. She was at Pearl Harbor in March and April 1943 to receive advanced fire control and radar gear, and again in September, to prepare for the Gilbert Islands operation.

Central Pacific campaigns, 1943–44
With Enterprise, in the Northern Covering Group, North Carolina sortied from Pearl Harbor 10 November for the assault on Makin, Tarawa, and Abemama. Air strikes began 19 November, and for 10 days mighty air blows were struck to aid marines ashore engaged in some of the bloodiest fighting of the Pacific War. Supporting the Gilberts campaign and preparing the assault on the Marshalls, North Carolina's highly accurate big guns bombarded Nauru 8 December, destroying air facilities, beach defense revetments, and radio installations. Later that month, she protected Bunker Hill (CV-17) in strikes against shipping and airfields at Kavieng, New Ireland and in January 1944 joined the Fast Carrier Striking Force (TF 58), Rear Admiral Marc Mitscher in command, at Funafuti, Ellice Islands.

During the assault and capture of the Marshall Islands, North Carolina illustrated the classic battleship functions of World War II. She screened carriers from air attack in pre-invasion strikes as well as during close air support of troops ashore, beginning with the initial strikes on Kwajalein 29 January. She fired on targets at Namur and Roi, where she sank a cargo ship in the lagoon. The battlewagon then protected carriers in the massive air strike on Truk, the Japanese fleet base in the Carolines, where 39 large ships were left sunk, burning, or uselessly beached, and 211 planes were destroyed, another 104 severely damaged. Next she fought off an air attack against the flattops near the Marianas 21 February splashing an enemy plane, and the next day again guarded the carriers in air strikes on Saipan, Tinian, and Guam. During much of this period she was flagship for Rear Admiral (later Vice Admiral) Willis A. Lee, Jr., Commander Battleships Pacific.

With Majuro as her base, North Carolina joined in the attacks on Palau and Woleai 31 March–1 April, shooting down another enemy plane during the approach phase. On Woleai, 150 enemy aircraft were destroyed along with ground installations. Support for the capture of the Hollandia area of New Guinea followed (13–24 April); then another major raid on Truk (29–30 April), during which North Carolina splashed yet another enemy aircraft. At Truk, North Carolina's planes were catapulted to rescue an American aviator downed off the reef. After one plane had turned over on landing and the other, having rescued all the airmen, had been unable to take off with so much weight, Tang (SS-306) saved all involved. The next day North Carolina destroyed coastal defense guns, antiaircraft batteries, and airfields at Ponape. The battleship then sailed to repair her rudder at Pearl Harbor.

Returning to Majuro, North Carolina sortied with the Enterprise group 6 June (D-Day in Europe) for the Marianas. During the assault on Saipan, North Carolina not only gave her usual protection to the carriers, but starred in bombardments on the west coast of Saipan covering minesweeping operations, and blasted the harbor at Tanapag, sinking several small craft and destroying enemy ammunition, fuel, and supply dumps. At dusk on invasion day, 15 June, the battleship downed one of the only two Japanese aircraft able to penetrate the combat air patrol.

On 18 June, North Carolina cleared the islands with the carriers to confront the Japanese 1st Mobile Fleet, tracked by submarines and aircraft for the previous four days. Next day began the Battle of the Philippine Sea, and she took station in the battle line that fanned out from the carriers. American aircraft succeeded in downing most of the Japanese raiders before they reached the American ships, and North Carolina shot down two of the few which got trough.

On that day and the next American air and submarine attacks, with the fierce antiaircraft fire of such ships as North Carolina, virtually ended any future threat from Japanese naval aviation: three carriers were sunk, two tankers damaged so badly they were scuttled, and all but 36 of the 430 planes with which the Japanese had begun the battle were destroyed. The loss of trained aviators was irreparable, as was the loss of skilled aviation maintenance men in the carriers. Not one American ship was lost, and only a handful of American planes failed to return to their carriers.

Western Pacific campaigns, 1944–45
After supporting air operations in the Marianas for another two weeks, North Carolina sailed for overhaul at Puget Sound Navy Yard. She rejoined the carriers off Ulithi 7 November as a furious typhoon struck the group. The ships fought through the storm and carried out air strikes against western Leyte, Luzon, and the Visayas to support the struggle for Leyte. During similar strikes later in the month, North Carolina fought off her first kamikaze attack.

As the pace of operations in the Philippines intensified, North Carolina guarded carriers while their planes kept the Japanese aircraft on Luzon airfields from interfering with the invasion convoys which assaulted Mindoro 15 December. Three days later the task force again sailed through a violent typhoon, which capsized several destroyers. With Ulithi now her base, North Carolina screened wide-ranging carrier strikes on Formosa, the coast of Indo-China and China, and the Ryukyus in January, and similarly supported strikes on Honshu the next month. Hundreds of enemy aircraft were destroyed which might otherwise have resisted the assault on Iwo Jima, where North Carolina bombarded and provided call fire for the assaulting Marines through 22 February.

Strikes on targets in the Japanese home islands laid the ground-work for the Okinawa assault, in which North Carolina played her dual role, of bombardment and carrier screening. Here, on 6 April, she downed three kamikazes, but took a 5-inch hit from a friendly ship during the melee of antiaircraft fire. Three men were killed and 44 wounded. Next day came the last desperate sortie of the Japanese Fleet, as Yamato, the largest battleship in the world, came south with her attendants. Yamato, a cruiser, and a destroyer were sunk, three other destroyers damaged so badly that they were scuttled, and the remaining four destroyers returned to their fleet base at Sasebo badly damaged. On the same day North Carolina splashed an enemy plane, and she shot down two more 17 April.

After overhaul at Pearl Harbor, North Carolina rejoined the carriers for a month of air strikes and naval bombardment on the Japanese home islands. Along with guarding the carriers, North Carolina fired on major industrial plants near Tokyo, and her scout plane pilots performed a daring rescue of a downed carrier pilot under heavy fire in Tokyo Bay.

North Carolina sent both sailors and members of her Marine Detachment ashore for preliminary occupation duty in Japan immediately at the close of the war, and patrolled off the coast until anchoring in Tokyo Bay 5 September to reembark her men. Carrying passengers from Okinawa, North Carolina sailed for home, reaching the Panama Canal 8 October. She anchored at Boston 17 October, and after overhaul at New York exercised in New England waters and carried United States Naval Academy midshipmen for a summer training cruise in the Caribbean.

North Carolina received 15 battle stars for World War II service.



Yamato was an impressive ship, but it spent a lot of time during the war not doing all that much--at least compared to the North Carolina.

These should've made the list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400_class_submarine

If we are considering submarines the type XXI should be on the list. Less about her success but about her innovation.

Adler

Good point Adler. In which case perhaps we should also include the USS Nautilus.

With regard to the Yamato, it was certainly a big ship but it had zero impact militarily except to eat up scarce resources which the Japanese could have put to better use elsewhere. It would have perhaps been better for them to have converted the Yamato to an aircraft carrier as was done with her sister ship.

Yes, indeed. But perhaps we should split the list in one of surface ships and one of submarines.

Adler

Another excellent suggestion. You are on a roll, sir. :)

they type xxi sub was absolutely one of the most revolutionary subs of all time. iirc, it was the precursor to the g.u.p.p.y. techonology.

it was also like the German Fokker D VII biplane fighter of WW1 where the Allies made sure to get their paws on all of them at the end of the war in order to examine them for technological purposes.

as for a more inclusive list...i would say that if we were to seperate, say, surface vessels from subs that it would probably be prudent to break each list down into ship types. maybe a top 5 for BBs, CAs, CVs, DDs, DDGs, SSs, SSNs, etc, etc. is this too much?

Sorry for going 'Back in the Day' again but HMS Victory (http://www.hms-victory.com/): http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads11/victorypol.jpg
100 Years Service and 100 Guns can't be wrong.

Well yes, the HMS Victory might have been so long in service but that does not mean she should be on the list however, as warships in that times had long service times.
So if we devide it in several classes we have at first define the types.

1. Carrier and submarines are easy to define.
2. Battleships are the main combat ship, may they be called Ships of the line, armoured frigates or what ever.
3. Battlecruiser in the sense of Jackie Fisher
4. Heavy cruiser, might them be called so or armoured cruiser or sailing frigate (which was more a battle cruiser)
5. light cruiser or sailing corvettes
6. Destroyer, Torpedo boats, Sloops, escorts

So we should at first have candidates for them:
1. Carrier: Nimitz, Enterprise, Hosho, Hermes, Argo, Ausonia, Exeter

2. Battleships: Santissima Trinidad, Warrior, Gauloise, König Wilhelm, Dreadnought, Orion, König, Iowa, Bismarck, Yamato

3. Battlecruiser: Derfflinger, Mackensen, Renown, Moltke, Seydlitz, Kongo (here I do have some problems of introducing British ships in regard of Skagerrak and Hood)

4. Heavy cruiser: Admiral Hipper, SMS Blücher (here I do not have so much knowledge to point out a ship leading ahead)

5. Light cruiser: Brooklyn, Belfast, Cöln II, Emden (as designed) (again my knowledge is limited)

6. Destroyer: Fletcher class, type 1916, Kagero, Fubuki, type 1936B (again, my knowledge is limited), type 1939

7. Submarines: U 19 class (ww1), type VII, type XXI, class 212, I 400, Otsu, Nautilus, Vanguard, Typhoon, LA

These ships are that what I am just remembering. I do have not much knowledge about some vessels. And also this list is missing older ships as well. So you should see in it only a discussion base of a list. At first we have to add all relevant ships.

Adler

nice list Adler :)

i think that the American Baltimore class CA was a fine heavy cruiser which served for quite a long time iirc (into the 80s i think).

the Alaska class CAs were also pretty mighty for their time although i don't think they completed the class due to the war's end. i am also fond of this class as they were all constructed at the New York Shipyard in Camden, New Jersey. my grand father on my dad's side worked at this shipyard during the war and Camden isn't all that far from my home (c. 50 miles).

Yep, the Batlimore class should be in. However the Alaska class was IMO a classic ww1 Battlecruiser for the price of an Iowa. Good enough to fight CA but inferior to all other BB and BC lurking around.

Adler

For submarines, I would include the British Trafalgar class because of the introduction of the pump-jet propulsion system. Pump-jets are quieter than standard propellors and don't snag on a towed sonar array, so the Trafalgar class has the edge over the Los Angeles class. And the Trafalgar class can fire cruise missiles.

Also, I think the Norweigan Ula class submarine should make the list. The Ula class is so difficult to detect that the rest of NATO went into a sulk and refused to let it take part in fleet exercises:D

Then it should be the class 206 on the list, as the Ula class is only a slightly modified version. However you are right concerning the quite boats. I heard that severa times these boats should "attack" a NATO battle group in manoeuvres. Mostly they were hailing the carrier and cruiser and saying they were sunk in a moment when the "victims" were even not aware of their presence!

Adler

Sorry for going 'Back in the Day' again but HMS Victory (http://www.hms-victory.com/): http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads11/victorypol.jpg
100 Years Service and 100 Guns can't be wrong.

Yes, the Victory is big and impressive and a very good choice. However, from that era I think I would choose the 74 gun ship of the line which was the at sea workhorse of the Napoleonic Wars in both the British and the French navies.

...so the Trafalgar class has the edge over the Los Angeles class. And the Trafalgar class can fire cruise missiles.Firing cruise missiles is no big thing. The U.S. 594 (Permit) class submarines built in the 1960s could fire cruise missiles. USS Gato (SSN 615) fired ten Tomahawk (BGM-109 TLAM-C) cruise missiles at Baghdad during the Gulf War. Gato was a much older submarine than HMS Trafalgar.

Also, I think the Norweigan Ula class submarine should make the list. The Ula class is so difficult to detect that the rest of NATO went into a sulk and refused to let it take part in fleet exercises:D When I was aboard both Gato and USS Dallas (SSN 700), we exercised against Ula submarines. They were hard to detect when on the battery, but when they snorkeled, they were as noisy as any other snorkeling submarine.

Launching cruise missiles is a bigger thing for the Royal Navy as Britain first brought them off you guys as recently as 1995. They cost us about a million dollars each, minus the warheads which we build ourselves; it was a good price, but then Britain is only ever going to use them in a conflict America approves of. They are distributed among our Swiftsure and Trafalgar SSNs, but not all of them have been refitted to take cruise missiles yet.

The change required to launch cruise missiles is in the fire control system. Tomahawk and Harpoon (BGM-84) cruise missiles are designed to be launched from 21" (553 mm) torpedo tubes. The torpedo tubes do not require any changes.

The U.S. 594 (Permit) class submarines built in the 1960s could fire cruise missiles.

The first submerged launch of a Tomahawk cruise missile by a U.S. submarine was made by the USS Barb (SSN-596) in 1978. The missile was manufactured by the Lockheed Corporation which evenually lost out in the contract competition to the General Dynamics Corporation (now Raytheon).

What about the USS Constitution? I know it wasnt the Victory of its day, but it did take out some superior British ships in her day, and she is the longest serving ship in any navy, on active duty since 1778 I believe. Unless Warrior has been longer, but i dont think so

i reckon that the list makers limited it to just 20th/21st century stuff.

The USS Constitution should be in the list of the heavy cruiser as she was a heavy frigate. However shall we limit the time frame for the 19th - 21st century?

Adler

My list for 20th/21st Century naval vessels:

10. Aegis cruisers (Ticonderoga class)
9. Bismarck/Tirpitz
8. Queen Elizabeth class battleships
7. Fletcher class destroyers
6. USS George Washington, first ballistic missile submarine
5. Iowa class battleships
4. USS Nautilus, first nuclear submarine
3. Type VII U-boat
2. HMS Eagle, first aircraft carrier
1. HMS Dreadnought

Can anyone tell that I used to be a submariner?

well submarines were an important revolution in traditional maritime warfare, so i think they deserve a spot or two. However, your list seems to be a "10 Most IMportant Naval Vessels of All Time" list. I think what were are looking for is a "10 Best Naval Vessels of All Time" list. I agree with you, though, that this is a good "Importance" list

Umm... only 2 out of the 10 are actually contemporary.

I can't think why no one has mentioned SSBN.

Fear factor can't be matched.

I can't think why no one has mentioned SSBN.

The USS George Washington previously mentioned is an SSBN.

Ummm where the hell is the Yamato ?

EDIT: I blame the Japanese for not using it (more).
I would have loved to see those 19inch guns in actions.

Oh yea I'd have loved to see Iowa and Yamato go at it. Im just a Battlship junkie though, the big guns and sheer firepower make me happy inside

Ummm where the hell is the Yamato ?

EDIT: I blame the Japanese for not using it (more).
I would have loved to see those 19inch guns in actions.

See posts #29, 30, and 35 in this thread. :)

Yamato was known among the fleet as a stay at home White Elephant, along with her sister, and is a curiosity only. The ships named did good service.

The Hood was the biggest, most powerful and most beautiful ship in the world for the 1920s and 1930s. She was the pride of the Royal Navy, and encapsulated it for the world. Her speed was only rivalled by a few on the list, and she was the finest ship of her time. She didn't get her needed modernization because of the requirements of war service. Hood definitely makes it.

As for the Iowas, they get top spot over any SSBN; the SSBNs main use is that they are not used, nor seen.

A list like this causes conjecture, but is in the nature of the beast. Other options spring to mind - the 688Is, Big E, LSTs, the Des Moines class.

with a name like "Big E" I'm mildly curious what it is. can someone enlighten me?

EDIT: also, the 688I, what is that? Wikipedia refuses to cooperate, i assume it's a surname?

USS Enterprise (CVN 65), the first nuclear powered aircraft carrier.

The 688I, also known as second flight 688s, are improved 688 (Los Angles) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_class_submarine) class nuclear powered submarines. The I stands for Improved.

BTW, the U.S. Navy usually refers to ship classes by the hull number of the lead ship rather than the name. The hull number is assigned as soon as the ship is authorized. The name may not be assigned until several years later. USS Los Angles (SSN 688) was the lead ship of the 688 class.

Big E that I referred to was the WW2 predecessor; most battle stars of the war, IIRC.

I'm surprised, Simon. Rather than Enterprise (CV 6), I would have chosen USS Essex (CV 9), USS Lexington (CV 2) or HMS Ark Royal for the classic WW2 aircraft carrier.

Big E was one of only three USN carriers to survive the entire war from go to woe; she was the most decorated, earning 20 battle stars; she fought in close to every major engagement, with the exception of Coral Sea, and with the noted inclusion of Midway, the great carrier engagement.

Essex class had a greater impact due to their numbers, but for a single ship, CV-6 gets the goods.

What about the Monitor?

What about the Monitor?

All the ships on the list appear to be 20th Century but in any case the USS Monitor wasn't the great leap in Naval Design people sometimes think it to be. Several other Navies already had Ironclads before Monitor was built (they were used in action, although not against other ironclads, during the Crimean War in the 1850's) and it wasn't even the first Ironclad with a revolving Turret, that distinction goes to HMS Trusty.

In short the USS Monitor really just benefited from a good PR Campaign :p

Might I be able to suggest HMS Speedy? Small, perhaps, but scores highly for effectiveness and fear factor!
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/upload/img_400/PW7970.jpg

How would you rate the Shinano to the Yamato class? Granted, Shinano's career was probably the shortest of any carrier of the war, but she was probably the heaviest armored carrier ever. I don't think she should be on the list due to her small hanger and little effect on the war, but I figured I'd bring her up since someone mentioned that the Yamato and Musashi would have been better as carriers like the Shinano.

I have a fire control question for the board. If memory serves me, the North Carolina class, South Dakota class, Iowa Class, and KGV class all had the same fire control system...a system that integrated a gyro compass and computers which allowed their guns to be substantially more accurate than any other battleships...an example being USS Washington scoring 9 hits in 63 shots against Kirishima (at night, close range). Considering that traditional battleship gunnery would score 1 hit every 100 shots (optimally 1 hit every 3 broadsides, like the german cruisers Scharnorst and Gneisenau of WWI), could any battleship really stand up to them? I have often heard Iowa vs. Yamato and Bismark vs. Iowa debates, but I have never heard this addressed. If I remember, the Bismark and Tirpitz did have a 60sec reload time (the North Carolina was 90sec). Firepower is a product of shell weight, shape, muzzle velocity, and rate of fire, but accuracy is important too. (btw, I definetely agree that the Bismark class belongs on the list...perhaps higher due to the attention they drew from the allies)

The Japanese ships that I would consider would be their heavy cruisers...the London Treaty dodgers that had 10 8" guns and crushed the allies during the battle of Java Sea. Those were highly successful.

I agree with Hood being on the list. She was scheduled for a modernization before the war (1940?). Scharnhorst and Gneiseneau were also supposed to receive 15" guns (part of Plan Z). I like the Q class Battleships being on the list...first battleships with 15" guns, long, long service life, and some (or all?) were modernized (I know for certain Warspite was).

I think we should retitle this list to be 20th Century ships of war (which hence excludes submarines since they are boats).

The Bismarck class could fire a salvo every 20 seconds! That means 3 salvos per minute= 24 shells.

Adler

That was probably the ideal conditions rate of fire. Analysis of the battle of Denmarck Strait suggests 1 per 60 seconds in battle conditions

http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarck/history/bisdenmarkstraitbattle.html

Check bottom of the page, it lists the times that salvos were fired, at no time does Bismarck fire a particular turret twice in the same minute.

Perhaps you have further information available?

You guys are missing the point. Rate of fire only matters when you have gotten on target and are hitting. The reason for the slow rate of fire is the time of flight of the shells. One needs to see the fall of shot to correct the next salvo. Not much point in firing 3 quick salvos with no idea how close you are to the target.

I wasn't missing the point, on the contrary that was my point, that the ability to fire 3 shots a minute counted for nothing if your accurate rate was only one per minute.

Hmm, I wonder what the American fast Battleships would do under ideal circumstances? 90secs works since the Washington and Kirishima were engaged for 10min (10min/7salvos=86sec), and that's what I heard about BB-55 when I visited her.

That would seem to imply that Bismark had traditional fire control...shoot under...shoot over...stradle...repeat. While Anglo-American fire controls would not need to wait? (although their rate of fire negated this advantage?)

This website has some interesting comparisons of and conclusions about World War II era battle ship fire control sytems:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/b_fire.htm

I am repeating myself: Like in the other threads we have to split at first the ships, so carrier to carrier and BB to BB. Also we need more and better criterias. Only innovation and fear factor are okay, the others not.
Service length is today about 30- 40 years for a ship. 100 years ago a ship of 15 years was outdated and the German navy for instance demanded a replacement every 20 years for the old ships.
Fire power seems okay, but you can't compare a Bismarck class BB with the SMS König Wilhelm. The latter armoured frigate had an impressive armament for her time but this is nothing compared to USS Iowa or Bismarck.
The same is by protection. The ships were used to be sufficient protected by armour until a new strategy and new threads emerged. The old armoured frigates were built to avoid damages of a classical line fight. But they were unable to withstand a single torpedo hit, as the sinking of the Chilenean Blanco Encalada shows. The Bismarck was well suited and a single tropedo would not have a critical damage for her (except hitting the ONE single position where she was endangered...). And today most ships rely on counter measures, that means they use guns and missiles not to be hit by enemy missiles for example. That can't be compared in a proper way.
Any suggestions here?

Adler