• 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?

Trebuchet

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Nov 20, 2003
Messages
43,805
Location
Port Townsend, Washington
Thread inspired by these two videos, themselves a response to this book.
Drachinifel*, the video guy, disagrees with more than half of the author's choices, but what are YOUR choices?
I hereby nominate the USN's Mississippi Class battleships, created by committee when the Navy wanted battleships but Congress didn't want to pay for them. Only 13,000 tons, carrying the same armament as the Connecticut Class, insufficient speed, sea-keeping, and fuel capacity, AND commissioned a year-and-a-half after Dreadnought! Sold to Greece after only a few years service, and considerably more useful to that nation.

Dishonorable Mention: The Alaska Class Cruisers, created to fight ships that never existed, extremely expensive (a whole new gun design), and capable, according to one source I've seen, of steaming in circles for a full hour with the helm centered, because reasons.

*Drachinifel. How the hell do you pronounce that? At least he stopped using the computerized voice.
 
Hmm the Littoral Combat Ship gets my nom. Let's have a shallow draft manuevarable ship that can operate in coastal areas that we can share a design between the Navy and Coast Guard. Good idea. Then it just kept ballooning until it cost more than most other countries spend on DDG's with far less capability.
 
The USS Vesuvius. A warship that looked more like a yacht. Moved fast. And was armed with....pnuematic guns that fired Dynamite.

It was the darling of the media, who thought in an ingenious and economical way to take out the big armored warships of the era.

However, the "guns" turned out to have woefully inadequate range (just 500m), and had horrible accuracy to boot. During the Spanish American War it made a few runs at the Cuban fortifications but did little more than unnerve the Spanish troops.
 
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.
 
The USS Vesuvius. A warship that looked more like a yacht. Moved fast. And was armed with....pnuematic guns that fired Dynamite.

It was the darling of the media, who thought in an ingenious and economical way to take out the big armored warships of the era.

However, the "guns" turned out to have woefully inadequate range (just 500m), and had horrible accuracy to boot. During the Spanish American War it made a few runs at the Cuban fortifications but did little more than unnerve the Spanish troops.

Pneumatic guns were popular for a while, it was to do with the characteristics of explosives and propellants at the time.
 
How is Rodney 'half a battleship'?

Treaty limitations? It wasn't the most battleship possible with the technology and resources of the period.

---

Anyway, I think that all warships, like all warplanes, are essentially interim designs, stopgaps to fill a need while you work on something better. There's no such thing as a "definitive" article. Just you going to war with the warships you have, not the warships you wish to have or plan to have at a later date.

---

The LCS is a good example of an "interwar" design. It's crap, mostly because there's no real urgency to it. In an actual shooting war with a near-peer adversary, we'd probably see something entirely different. Some mass-produced, cheap, awkward, and ineffective design. And then they'd work on refining and improving and replacing it. Just about the time the war was over, they'd have something much better - maybe even worth keeping! ... And they'd only make three of them because the war is over and they don't need them anymore.

And then you'd have a whole generation of people convinced that the first wartime design, warts and all, was the "definitive" warship design, simply because there were a lot of them and they're in all the war footage and there's a lengthy wikipedia article about their design and exploits.

And you'd have a small but vocal faction of butthurt Navy nerds, loudly complaining that they should have built out whole armadas of the new design, instead of just the three and then mothballing them.
 
Last edited:
How is Rodney 'half a battleship'?

Not sure, I mean the no rear turret idea doesn't really make the class half a battleship... ugly as sin though yes.

Here is a real half battleship:

Battleship-carrier_Ise.jpg


Oh Japan... such poor decisions you made.
 
The LCS is a good example of an "interwar" design. It's crap, mostly because there's no real urgency to it. In an actual shooting war with a near-peer adversary, we'd probably see something entirely different. Some mass-produced, cheap, awkward, and ineffective design. And then they'd work on refining and improving and replacing it. Just about the time the war was over, they'd have something much better - maybe even worth keeping! ... And they'd only make three of them because the war is over and they don't need them anymore.

And then you'd have a whole generation of people convinced that the first wartime design, warts and all, was the "definitive" warship design, simply because there were a lot of them and they're in all the war footage and there's a lengthy wikipedia article about their design and exploits.

And you'd have a small but vocal faction of butthurt Navy nerds, loudly complaining that they should have built out whole armadas of the new design, instead of just the three and then mothballing them.

It is sort of like the joint-strike-fighter problem. Instead of building a ship for a specific purpose we want it to do everything. Stealthily insert a commando team, maybe patrol coastal waters. OK. Oh, but it needs to be able to do its own AA and ASW warfare. And it needs a helicopter pad. So instead of having a platform for one specific need, it becomes this jack-of-all trades kind of thing, master of none. Like the JSF, its compromised because its supposed to be all things to all air forces... navy air forces... and a marine corps harrier version. Now, a smaller country might "need" that, but the USN has well over 100 major combat warships so it can afford to specialize.
 
Last edited:
I seriously doubt whether the surviving 5% of Bismarck's crew would have agreed with you.

Dave

Yeah, and measured by broadside throw weight, the Nelson class was 4th highest of any battleship design ever. 18,432 lbs compared to Bismark's 14,112 lbs. One of the many overrated German designs of the war (I don't mean just ships).
 
Hmm the Littoral Combat Ship gets my nom. Let's have a shallow draft manuevarable ship that can operate in coastal areas that we can share a design between the Navy and Coast Guard. Good idea. Then it just kept ballooning until it cost more than most other countries spend on DDG's with far less capability.
It does seem unbalanced on paper at least.
 
It is sort of like the joint-strike-fighter problem. Instead of building a ship for a specific purpose we want it to do everything. Stealthily insert a commando team, maybe patrol coastal waters. OK. Oh, but it needs to be able to do its own AA and ASW warfare. And it needs a helicopter pad. So instead of having a platform for one specific need, it becomes this jack-of-all trades kind of thing, master of none. Like the JSF, its compromised because its supposed to be all things to all air forces... navy air forces... and a marine corps harrier version. Now, a smaller country might "need" that, but the USN has well over 100 major combat warships so it can afford to specialize.

Without wanting to get into it here, I think the JSF is an obvious and intelligent iteration of the same processes that first produced, and then obsoleted, the "night" fighter and the "all weather" fighter. Just the logistics win alone makes it an improvement over its predecessors.

Warships, on the other hand are a little different. But even there, "multi-role" is an important requirement for most surface combatants.

The destroyer, for example. It starts as a defensive picket for the fleet, screening against torpedo boats, and later submarines. The ASW job is vitally important to the fleet, so destroyers pretty much have to be able to operate ASW helicopters, use sonar, and launch torpedoes or depth charges.

With the advent of air power, the vital job of air defense must also be done. And it seems like it's simply more effective - you get more protection for the fleet - if every surface combatant can do both ASW and AD work. The pinnacle of this principle is the Arleigh Burke and similar classes. They can defend against submarines, defend against air attack, engage other surface combatants, and even support shore operations. This is vastly superior to needing four different ships to fill all those roles in your fleet. It gives you supreme flexibility in your disposition of forces. Any destroyer, anywhere on the picket line, can handle any threat the enemy throws at you, and do any job that happens to be in front of them.

Carriers do a similar multirole thing, but in terms of air power. The flattop itself is just an air base. But that air base can initiate air superiority, naval strike, and land attack missions with equal facility - often using the same airframes with different loadouts!

Anyway, I see the problem of the LCS as being one of too many "nice to have" features. Typical of an interwar design. A real wartime LCS wouldn't bother with "nice to have". It would be focused on closing an observed capability gap that was sinking ships, killing sailors, and losing battles.

One big problem the LCS is having is that it was designed for a requirement to operate in permissive environments. But that requirement doesn't really in a shooting war against a near-peer, or even a committed but inferior opponent in their home waters with restrictive rules of engagement (Iran and the Persian Gulf, I'm looking at you).

If a shooting war with Iran does kick off, we'll probably take the lessons learned from the LCS, and crank out something else that actually closes whatever capability gap emerges.

Probably it's going to be something similar to the Sa'ar 5 class. Something focused on defeating small combatants in contested waters.

It might also just be a new frigate class, doing basically the same ASW/AD/surface combat job as the destroyers, but cheaper and smaller.

Current generations of air defense radars and missiles are increasingly capable against small surface targets and faster missiles. The distinction between a plane, an anti-ship missile, and a fast attack boat is pretty much going away, in terms of what weapon systems you need for each one. More multi-role!

I like multi-role. But there are limits. There's only so many different capabilities you can cram into a smaller boat. At a certain point, it makes sense to specialize, especially with smaller boats, which are cheaper. Part of the problem of the battleship in modern navies is that it combines over specialization (surface combat at short range) with huge cost. The only time you want to specialize a big ship, I think, is when there's a big payoff (container ships) or it's just a way to get the multirole you want some other way (carriers).
 

Back
Top Bottom