• 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?

Yes.
Though there is a similarity to them.
Both seem to have been unbalanced on their fateful voyages, the Vasa down to ****** design, and the Mary Rose due to new and bigger guns on board and more people (possibly up to 700). And they both got done in by a cross wind, pushing their open gun ports under water.
 
Tolls said:
Yes.
Though there is a similarity to them.
Both seem to have been unbalanced on their fateful voyages, the Vasa down to ****** design, and the Mary Rose due to new and bigger guns on board and more people (possibly up to 700). And they both got done in by a cross wind, pushing their open gun ports under water.
Click to expand...

And the Mary Rose may have had a Spanish crew who did not understand the orders given in English. The order was to close the gun holes so the ship could turn. They were left open so water poured in sinking her.
 
I had read Preston's book long before these videos came out and I too disagree with most of Preston's choices. To me it seems a book designed to sell books, not to be taken too seriously by people with a truly keen interest in naval history.

The fundamental problem with the book is Preston doesn't have a consistent idea or standard as to what makes a ship bad. How is one supposed to find the answer if one has not defined the problem?

If a ship exhibits poor seakeeping qualities, structural issues, or fails to meet its design requirements I would consider that to be a bad ship. If however, a ship meets its design requirements and performs satisfactorily, but those design requirements turn out to be faulty, does that make the ship bad? I think not. Preston doesn't seem to see the distinction.
 
lobosrul5 said:
The Navy is... trying. Buying missiles from Norway of all places.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/t...mbat-ship-could-be-turned-killer-thanks-26183

“They don’t have the firepower to hit anything more than a few miles away. They’re unlikely to survive being hit by anything in return. They cost more than twice as much as promised, and require 75 percent more crew to operate than planned for. The modular-mission capabilities that were a key selling point had to be abandoned. And they’re breaking down constantly.”
Click to expand...

LCS (both types) is a great example of a faulty requirement AND ships built that do not even meet that faulty requirement while also suffering serious mechanical defects and all while being grossly over-budget. They deserve their own book.
 
Mark F said:
I had read Preston's book long before these videos came out and I too disagree with most of Preston's choices. To me it seems a book designed to sell books, not to be taken too seriously by people with a truly keen interest in naval history.

The fundamental problem with the book is Preston doesn't have a consistent idea or standard as to what makes a ship bad. How is one supposed to find the answer if one has not defined the problem?

If a ship exhibits poor seakeeping qualities, structural issues, or fails to meet its design requirements I would consider that to be a bad ship. If however, a ship meets its design requirements and performs satisfactorily, but those design requirements turn out to be faulty, does that make the ship bad? I think not. Preston doesn't seem to see the distinction.
Click to expand...

I've not read the book, but several of his choices seem to be simply that it was the wrong ship for the time. I.E., Yamato. He disregards that at the beginning of the war NOBODY, except for perhaps a few Japanese carrier enthusiasts, realized how important carriers would be. And they weren't the dominant factor in the IJN.
 
Trebuchet said:
I've not read the book, but several of his choices seem to be simply that it was the wrong ship for the time. I.E., Yamato. He disregards that at the beginning of the war NOBODY, except for perhaps a few Japanese carrier enthusiasts, realized how important carriers would be. And they weren't the dominant factor in the IJN.
Click to expand...

That is the problem. They should have known that aircraft would be the key weapon, rather than battleships.
 
Mark F said:
LCS (both types) is a great example of a faulty requirement AND ships built that do not even meet that faulty requirement while also suffering serious mechanical defects and all while being grossly over-budget. They deserve their own book.
Click to expand...

Their initially-envisioned role strikes me as similar to the "Torpedo Boat Destroyer" role or even the sort of WWII destroyers, which generally were smaller and often had a shallower draught than the LCS.

Modern destroyers are quite different.
 
rjh01 said:
That is the problem. They should have known that aircraft would be the key weapon, rather than battleships.
Click to expand...
Early aircraft weren't up to the task. Nobody had any reason to believe carriers were going to become the decisive surface combatant.

Even today, it's a huge challenge to get a decisive number of capable planes into that hangar, and launched and recovered on that airfield.

There's a reason only one nation in the world currently boasts of carriers as its naval warfare centerpiece.
 
Last edited:
I think you have to at least nominate the Japanese aircraft carriers whose flight decks were made of ... wood. It's very hard to survive a WWII battle in a wooden warship like the Kaga.

The saving grace - and it's a big one - is that the Japanese were the first nation to successfully deploy aircraft carriers in battle. So, for at least a few years, the Kaga was unmatched. It was a terrible warship, but it was first.
 
Loss Leader said:
I think you have to at least nominate the Japanese aircraft carriers whose flight decks were made of ... wood. It's very hard to survive a WWII battle in a wooden warship like the Kaga.

The saving grace - and it's a big one - is that the Japanese were the first nation to successfully deploy aircraft carriers in battle. So, for at least a few years, the Kaga was unmatched. It was a terrible warship, but it was first.
Click to expand...

It was unmatched for years. That seems like a great warship to me.

No weapon is future proof.
 
theprestige said:
It was unmatched for years. That seems like a great warship to me.

No weapon is future proof.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I withdraw my nomination. The Kaga sucked, but it sucked less than any other aircraft carrier for a long, long time.
 
rjh01 said:
That is the problem. They should have known that aircraft would be the key weapon, rather than battleships.
Click to expand...

Captain_Swoop said:
Even the RN that invented carriers didn't realise it
Click to expand...

As I said earlier, a few Japanese may have realized it, but they weren't in charge. They had the world's best carrier doctrine, aviators, and aircraft at the end of 1941, but it all went away in six months, in large part thanks to intelligence.

Loss Leader said:
I think you have to at least nominate the Japanese aircraft carriers whose flight decks were made of ... wood. It's very hard to survive a WWII battle in a wooden warship like the Kaga.

The saving grace - and it's a big one - is that the Japanese were the first nation to successfully deploy aircraft carriers in battle. So, for at least a few years, the Kaga was unmatched. It was a terrible warship, but it was first.
Click to expand...

American carriers also had wooden decks at the time. They were easier to repair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom