• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

World's Worst Warships?

lobosrul5 said:
Yeah... and I know someone mentioned it upthread, but the Zumwaut (DDG-1000). Lets spend billions on a ship thats main role is going to be shore bombardment. Because aerial bombing hasn't been proven to be effective... oh wait yeah it has.

And the gun is unusable.

https://news.usni.org/2018/01/11/no...destroyer-gun-system-navy-monitoring-industry

So it was just an extremely expensive new VLS missile launcher platform???
Click to expand...

I think the gun is usable, it just doesn't make economic sense to try to use it. With the collapse of the USSR, the anticipated need for this new class evaporated, and with it the value in manufacturing the ammunition. If the new gun had real targets, they could have justified the expense of the new ammo, and realized per-unit cost savings by manufacturing the ammo in large quantities. However, without such targets, there's no point in manufacturing a few rounds at very high costs, for what is now essentially a prototype and technology testbed.

The Zumwalts made a lot of sense when they were first designed. But the world changed, and they stopped making sense. That's we only have three of them, instead of a dozen, and why we've curtailed a lot of the planned spending to complete their original design goals. And that's why they look silly today, if you don't take into account the context in which they emerged.
 
theprestige said:
I think the gun is usable, it just doesn't make economic sense to try to use it. With the collapse of the USSR, the anticipated need for this new class evaporated, and with it the value in manufacturing the ammunition. If the new gun had real targets, they could have justified the expense of the new ammo, and realized per-unit cost savings by manufacturing the ammo in large quantities. However, without such targets, there's no point in manufacturing a few rounds at very high costs, for what is now essentially a prototype and technology testbed.

The Zumwalts made a lot of sense when they were first designed. But the world changed, and they stopped making sense. That's we only have three of them, instead of a dozen, and why we've curtailed a lot of the planned spending to complete their original design goals. And that's why they look silly today, if you don't take into account the context in which they emerged.
Click to expand...

Uhh, the USSR dissolved in 1991. The Zumwalt didn't even get into the design phase until 2005. We literally could've just taken 22 billion dollars and burned it on a big bonfire and gotten our money's worth just as well.
 
Aerial bombing has proven effective, but it has trade-offs too. One is the cost of ordinance, another the risk that planes face against advanced air defense networks. It's cheaper for Russia to continue advancing the state of the art in air defense, rather than trying to beat the US in air superiority.

One design goal of the Zumwalt was to be able to throw artillery rounds with greater accuracy at standoff ranges. That's what the gun is for. An F-35 might struggle to deliver a glide bomb or cruise missile safely from standoff ranges in some scenarios. In such scenarios, a low-observable big gun ship can creep up to the horizon and lob half a dozen long-range shells at the same target. Yes, the shells are expensive, but so are the glide bombs and cruise missiles.

But again, such scenarios are unlikely to materialize in the near future. If the day comes when we need to take a serious look at raids against artificial islands in the South China Sea, we'll probably revisit the Zumwalt, and start building a follow-on class that adapts and extends the lessons learned from the three Zs.

US and UK modern naval history are replete with onesey-twosey ship classes, interim designs that are then supplanted by improved variants. I think that's what's happening with the Zumwalt.
 
theprestige said:
Aerial bombing has proven effective, but it has trade-offs too. One is the cost of ordinance, another the risk that planes face against advanced air defense networks. It's cheaper for Russia to continue advancing the state of the art in air defense, rather than trying to beat the US in air superiority.

One design goal of the Zumwalt was to be able to throw artillery rounds with greater accuracy at standoff ranges. That's what the gun is for. An F-35 might struggle to deliver a glide bomb or cruise missile safely from standoff ranges in some scenarios. In such scenarios, a low-observable big gun ship can creep up to the horizon and lob half a dozen long-range shells at the same target. Yes, the shells are expensive, but so are the glide bombs and cruise missiles.

But again, such scenarios are unlikely to materialize in the near future. If the day comes when we need to take a serious look at raids against artificial islands in the South China Sea, we'll probably revisit the Zumwalt, and start building a follow-on class that adapts and extends the lessons learned from the three Zs.

US and UK modern naval history are replete with onesey-twosey ship classes, interim designs that are then supplanted by improved variants. I think that's what's happening with the Zumwalt.
Click to expand...

Stand off ranges fairly near a coastline .
 
kookbreaker said:
Looks like Emmerich junk. The attack on Midway island looks like it has more planes than the entire Japanese flet possessed.
Click to expand...


Actually I paused it and counted about 100 planes, which is accurate. One problem I did notice, though, is some Vals are way too low for a dive bombing attack.

A few other things:

  • Zeros firing their cannons when strafing personnel: The model in service at the time only carried seven seconds' worth of cannon ammunition, and 33 seconds' worth of 7.7mm machine gun ammunition.
  • Wrong model of Mitchell on the Hornet: The B-25B lacked the Plexiglas tail-gunner position
  • Battleship row during the attack: Nevada and Maryland appear to be misaligned, and there's no sign of the capsized Oklahoma. Plus Neosho is nowhere to be seen.
 
US cans were in use with British forces before the Brit version which came in to production in 1942.
 
SpitfireIX said:
Actually I paused it and counted about 100 planes, which is accurate. One problem I did notice, though, is some Vals are way too low for a dive bombing attack.
T]
Click to expand...

I guess so. Still it rubs me the wrong way as it looks too much like when the alien fighters in Independence Day attacked the jet fighters on the ground.

I suspect the actual Midway attack did not come in one big clummock. But my copy of Shattered Sword is on loan.

And if that’s Ensign Gay going “wooo!” as he surfaces consider my eyes rolled. Dude, all your friends in your squad are dead and you need to hide from Japanese looking for survivors.
 
Here's a real howler I just noticed: In the Battleship Row strafing scene, the ship directly in front of the Arizona appears to be the Pennsylvania :eek: (Tripod masts, triple turrets {I think}). Even worse, the ship outboard appears to be either the California or the Tennessee (lattice masts, triple turrets), except the hull has the form of either the Pennsylvania or Nevada class. :jaw-dropp
 
kookbreaker said:
I guess so. Still it rubs me the wrong way as it looks too much like when the alien fighters in Independence Day attacked the jet fighters on the ground.

I suspect the actual Midway attack did not come in one big clummock. But my copy of Shattered Sword is on loan.

And if that’s Ensign Gay going “wooo!” as he surfaces consider my eyes rolled. Dude, all your friends in your squad are dead and you need to hide from Japanese looking for survivors.
Click to expand...

Yeah, noticed that last bit as well. Pretty sure that's who it's intended to be, and agree the scene is stupid.

Back more on topic, one of the types listed in the book is the Omaha Class. These were the USN's first attempt at a modern cruiser of any size. Obsolescent when commissioned, they nonetheless all survived WWII, mostly by not being assigned to where major action was expected. Not great, but terrible? I can think of worse.

My copy of Shattered Sword is ... somewhere. Dang move! It was right in the living room until then!

ETA: The Omaha's saw a lot of service as destroyer squadron flagships during the interwar years. That's pretty much all the Japanese used theirs for.
 
Last edited:
SpitfireIX said:
I have no idea what you mean by this.
Click to expand...


"Some of the ships were out of position in the Pearl Harbor scene. That ruined the whole movie for me." Is something few people are going to say.

("The movie sucked, and that ruined the whole movie for me," is pretty likely though.)
 
SpitfireIX said:
I have no idea what you mean by this.
Click to expand...

"Real howler" implies some sort of egregious mistake. Using stock models or reproductions that don't exactly match minor details isn't such a mistake.

Nothing in the story depends on getting the look of the ships exactly, historically right. As long as it's close enough to evoke the desired experience in the majority of the audience, it's close enough.
 
Myriad said:
"Some of the ships were out of position in the Pearl Harbor scene. That ruined the whole movie for me." Is something few people are going to say.

("The movie sucked, and that ruined the whole movie for me," is pretty likely though.)
Click to expand...

I also noticed the ships were wrong and would be one of those people.
 
Trebuchet said:
I also noticed the ships were wrong and would be one of those people.
Click to expand...
Seriously? The entire movie was ruined for you because the ships weren't perfectly accurate?

How hard should moviemakers work to meet your expectations of accuracy? How much of their budget should they plan on spending to keep you happy?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom