• 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?

You could probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of engineers with steam tickets these days.
 
My dad died 18 months ago, I think he was probably the most experienced 'steam ticket' man left in the world. He started his career on the engine shed at Skinningrove Steelworks as an apprentice or railway locomotives. He worked on P&O 'up and downers'. Ex 'Liberty Ships' in cargo service, worked through turbines aboard Liners and then a Chief Engineer aboard supertankers in the late 60s and 70s. His later years were all diesel but he 'kept his hand in' aboard an ex WW2 'Admiralty Armed trawler' preserved as a museum ship.
Last RN steam ships in service were the Leander class Frigates, last one decommissioned in the mid 90s
 
It would probably be cheaper and faster to build three more Burkes, than refit one Iowa.

Not even counting the knock on effects of the Burkes already having established training and maintenance pipelines.

And if you need more shore bombardment for some reason, talk to the Air Force. F-15Es, B-1Bs, and F-35As in "beast mode" are going to be far more effective than BB guns. Plus being useful for all kinds of other fire missions as well.

Plus also having established training and supply pipelines.

The "but muh battleships are still relevant!11!" meme really needs to die in a fire.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
You could probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of engineers with steam tickets these days.
Click to expand...

Well, of course ALL of the US Navy's nuclear powered vessels are technically steam ships! Probably takes a different "ticket".

I'd guess the last of the Navy's conventional steam powered ships was USS Camden, of the Sacramento class. Those ships each had half the propulsion system from an Iowa battleship, specifically the never-completed USS Kentucky.
 
Trebuchet said:
Well, of course ALL of the US Navy's nuclear powered vessels are technically steam ships! Probably takes a different "ticket".

I'd guess the last of the Navy's conventional steam powered ships was USS Camden, of the Sacramento class. Those ships each had half the propulsion system from an Iowa battleship, specifically the never-completed USS Kentucky.
Click to expand...
Blue Ridge and Mount Whitney are still going, and will be for twenty years. No Boiler Tech's any more though.
 
Cool, thanks for that!

How about SMS Blucher? Not a terrible ship per se, but conceived as what the Germans thought would be an answer to the British Battle Cruisers then building. She wasn't. The Germans then compounded the mistake by assigning her to their battle cruiser squadron despite being too slow, lightly armed, and lightly armored, resulting in the deaths of more than 700 men at Dogger Bank.
Her WWII namesake didn't fare well either, being sunk by land-based Norwegian torpedoes during the German invasion.
 
theprestige said:
It would probably be cheaper and faster to build three more Burkes, than refit one Iowa.

Not even counting the knock on effects of the Burkes already having established training and maintenance pipelines.

And if you need more shore bombardment for some reason, talk to the Air Force. F-15Es, B-1Bs, and F-35As in "beast mode" are going to be far more effective than BB guns. Plus being useful for all kinds of other fire missions as well.

Plus also having established training and supply pipelines.

The "but muh battleships are still relevant!11!" meme really needs to die in a fire.
Click to expand...

Not arguing that battleships need to come back, but artillery support has its place in modern warfare. Our air-power is breath-taking, and they can put iron bombs through your bathroom window all day, but we only have so many aircraft that can drop only so many bombs. Factor in fuel and re-arming time there are many cases where troops on the ground have to dig in and wait for the next strike. New sea-launched ground-to-ground missiles should be developed to fill in that gap. Cruise missiles are great, but vulnerable.

Of course we could always try peace, but where's the fun in that?;)
 
Artillery support is best given by artillery.

Why would you want to tie up thousands of crew aboard a battleship to serve a few guns giving artillery support?
 
Last edited:
Fire support doesn't need to be against coastal fortifications.
Battleships were giving fire support right in to August off the Normandy beaches.

HMS Rodney for example had a range of 39,780 yards
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
Artillery support is best given by artillery.

Why would you want to tie up thousands of crew aboard a battleship to serve a few guns giving artillery support?
Click to expand...

And very large ones at that. To my way of thinking, a large number of smaller ones would be more effective. Those 16 inchers can, of course, let the ship be out of reach of the enemy shore batteries. Of which none exist.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Through no fault of the design, the Yamato and its fellow Yamato Class battleships have to be considered.

The Japanese had already taught the world that big gun naval warfare was going to be a thing of the past, but rather than use the two yuge battleships to possibly sucker the Americans in when they still had sufficient naval power (they being the IJN), they kept them safely away until their fates were fairly well sealed when the USN had submarine and carrier dominance. The Musashi went down during Leyte Gulf, when it was still the flagship of the fleet, I believe. And the inglorious and stupid end to the Yamato at Okinawa is the stuff of legend.

The one time the Yamato got into the shooting war it was very effective against smaller ships but didn't meet up with the USN battleships, and certainly no carriers! Both of the ships of the class were allergic to carriers. The anti-aircraft batteries were less effective than designed. And no one's immune to torpedoes, which is what took out the Musashi.

So design-wise, probably good ships but we don't have enough data. But when it comes to mismanagement by naval command, absolute boondoggles.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but once it was converted for spaceflight, it really came into it's own.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Battleship_Yamato
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Artillery support is best given by artillery.

Why would you want to tie up thousands of crew aboard a battleship to serve a few guns giving artillery support?
Click to expand...

Completely tooting my own Reg't's horn here, but this. Modern 155mm howitzers reach out 40km. And drop their rounds in a area the size of a football field. And at 24km within 5-10m and a lethal radius of 50m....
 
Foolmewunz said:
Through no fault of the design, the Yamato and its fellow Yamato Class battleships have to be considered.

The Japanese had already taught the world that big gun naval warfare was going to be a thing of the past, but rather than use the two yuge battleships to possibly sucker the Americans in when they still had sufficient naval power (they being the IJN), they kept them safely away until their fates were fairly well sealed when the USN had submarine and carrier dominance. The Musashi went down during Leyte Gulf, when it was still the flagship of the fleet, I believe. And the inglorious and stupid end to the Yamato at Okinawa is the stuff of legend.

The one time the Yamato got into the shooting war it was very effective against smaller ships but didn't meet up with the USN battleships, and certainly no carriers! Both of the ships of the class were allergic to carriers. The anti-aircraft batteries were less effective than designed. And no one's immune to torpedoes, which is what took out the Musashi.

So design-wise, probably good ships but we don't have enough data. But when it comes to mismanagement by naval command, absolute boondoggles.
Click to expand...

My bold. I had to reach back for this as it was just quoted by someone else.

The ONLY time Yamato saw surface action was the Battle Off Samar, against six thin-skinned escort carriers and a similar number of escorting DD's and DE's. The former, of course, had 150 aircraft at their disposal and 250 more from their sisters to the south. The latter had torpedoes. Yamato turned tail and ran away.
To be fair to him, Admiral Kurita had had a very bad 48 hours, having had to swim for it when his flagship was torpedoed out from under him; and seeing Musashi sunk later that day.
 
The Musashi had been attacked by standard methods and it was noted they didn't hurt it as much as other ships. By the time the Yamato went out the last time the USN had a plan. Take firepower off the decks and then only torpedoes to the starboard. And lots of them. Dive bombers pulled up later and only had the biggest bombs, they knew she was tough.

I would guess the Americans were not quite sure just what it would take to sink the Yamato. Not a bad ship per se but outside of operating budget by late war and desperately needing air cover.
 
theprestige said:
A claim not supported by the link.
Click to expand...

True, there are about 90 rounds available and no plans to make any more, due to the cost.

ETA: For clarity, I'm talking about the 155mm LRAP round for the Zumwalt class
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom