Top 10 Naval Vessels of All Time

[Cheezy the Wiz]

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?

 

[YNCS]

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

The 688I, also known as second flight 688s, are improved 688 (Los Angles) 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.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

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

 

[YNCS]

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.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

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.

 

[admiral-bell]

What about the Monitor?

 

[Hotpoint]

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

 

[Gangor]

Might I be able to suggest HMS Speedy? Small, perhaps, but scores highly for effectiveness and fear factor!

 

[cincybearsfan]

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).

 

[Adler17]

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

Adler

 

[privatehudson]

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?

 

[Ace]

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.

 

[privatehudson]

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.

 

[cincybearsfan]

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?)

 

[7ronin]

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

 

[Adler17]

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