World's Worst Warships?

[rjh01]

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.



American carriers also had wooden decks at the time. They were easier to repair.

They did tests in 1921 that showed that aircraft could sink battleships. But this was ignored. They should have worked out that if they then improved the aircraft and weapons then battleships were obsolete.

https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/...tchell-and-sinking-ostfriesland-consideration

After an attack by aircraft carrying 1,000 lb. bombs, his airmen dropped six 2,000 lb. bombs on the battleship, and in a twenty-minute period, the Ostfriesland was sent to the bottom of the sea.

There were good reasons to build aircraft carriers with wooden decks. They could carry more aircraft. If your main opponent was another aircraft carrier then they would have a limited number of aircraft to use against you. So damage would be limited. However if your opponent was land based aircraft they could send a vast number of aircraft against you. This means you need to be almost unsinkable and armored decks essential, even at the cost of the number of aircraft you can carry.

 

[Hammy]

I remember reading years ago that the american ships were fighting fires with foam on there carriers because of the highly flammable aviation fuel. And the Japanese navy was using water to fight fires. And if I remember correctly it was top secret information until after wwii. That in my opinion is one reason why the IJN lost so many carriers to damage from aircraft and torpedo attacks.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

Modern Destroyers tend to fit the old Cruiser role. General Purpose Frigates became the new Destroyers.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

US carriers had wooden flight decks.
there are good reasons for using wooden flight decks on carriers built in the 30s.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Yeah, I withdraw my nomination. The Kaga sucked, but it sucked less than any other aircraft carrier for a long, long time.

Even the RN Carriers that had armoured hangers and steel decks?

 

[Andy_Ross]

They did tests in 1921 that showed that aircraft could sink battleships. But this was ignored. They should have worked out that if they then improved the aircraft and weapons then battleships were obsolete.

Well, they managed to sing an old, stationary ship eventually.
As the actual war demonstrated it was quite hard to actually sink ships with aircraft. Now, you are going to mention the Prince of Wales and Repulse but even then this was still quite exceptional, experience to that point in the Med and Channel had shown that warships with freedom to manoeuvre were hard to sink.
After Dunkirk the Germans had difficulty sinking even slow moving cargo ships off the south coast and in the Channel.

There were good reasons to build aircraft carriers with wooden decks. They could carry more aircraft. If your main opponent was another aircraft carrier then they would have a limited number of aircraft to use against you. So damage would be limited. However if your opponent was land based aircraft they could send a vast number of aircraft against you. This means you need to be almost unsinkable and armored decks essential, even at the cost of the number of aircraft you can carry.

It wasn't just to hold more aircraft, it was for ease of repair and the 'give' in a timber deck cushioned the landing force on the aircraft. As aircraft increased in strength and size this became less important.

 

[HansMustermann]

Even the RN Carriers that had armoured hangers and steel decks?

It's a matter of context and compromise, though.

US and Japanese carriers were designed to have to deal with other carriers on the open sea. They just carried more planes -- especially the US ones -- to deal with the limited number of enemy planes and hopefully sink the enemy carrier before it sinks them. A decision was made, for that specific context, that hauling more planes to a fight is more important than armour.

RN carriers were designed for operation in the Mediterranean and in coastal areas, where you might be targeted by an actual airfield or two. You CAN'T overwhelm them with more planes of your own, and you can't sink Sicily to save your own carrier. Hence the emphasis was more on protection than number of planes.

Both are compromises, really, and both can be argued as the best choice for the specific context they were supposed to be used.

 

[rjh01]

Well, they managed to sing an old, stationary ship eventually.
As the actual war demonstrated it was quite hard to actually sink ships with aircraft. Now, you are going to mention the Prince of Wales and Repulse but even then this was still quite exceptional, experience to that point in the Med and Channel had shown that warships with freedom to manoeuvre were hard to sink.
After Dunkirk the Germans had difficulty sinking even slow moving cargo ships off the south coast and in the Channel.



It wasn't just to hold more aircraft, it was for ease of repair and the 'give' in a timber deck cushioned the landing force on the aircraft. As aircraft increased in strength and size this became less important.

The British damaged at least one modern battleship by using an obsolete aircraft. The Americans sank four aircraft carriers at Midway. That was after each side sank or damaged aircraft carriers at Coral Sea. So no, just get modern WW2 aircraft and you can sink ships. Much easier if they do not have aircraft protection.

 

[Pope130]

The British damaged at least one modern battleship by using an obsolete aircraft. The Americans sank four aircraft carriers at Midway. That was after each side sank or damaged aircraft carriers at Coral Sea. So no, just get modern WW2 aircraft and you can sink ships. Much easier if they do not have aircraft protection.

I believe a lot of the seemingly hide-bound decisions made by naval authorities, which resulted in ships that were obsolete by the time they entered service, were due to a lack understanding of how fast the technology would develop. When WW-II started major powers still had some combat bi-planes on inventory, and ended with jets coming on line. Weapons developed in un-anticipated ways as well. With the long design and production time of capitol ships this was a particular problem. A naval planner in 1939 could not be expected to include provision for defense against the guided missiles that the ship he was designing would have to deal with five years later.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It was appreciated that Battleships weren't the force they once were, the RN for example halted building on the Lions and Vanguard switching large ship construction to Cruisers and Aircraft Carriers.
Essentially the only real target for a Battleship is another Battleship.

 

[Mark F]

It's a matter of context and compromise, though.

US and Japanese carriers were designed to have to deal with other carriers on the open sea. They just carried more planes -- especially the US ones -- to deal with the limited number of enemy planes and hopefully sink the enemy carrier before it sinks them. A decision was made, for that specific context, that hauling more planes to a fight is more important than armour.

RN carriers were designed for operation in the Mediterranean and in coastal areas, where you might be targeted by an actual airfield or two. You CAN'T overwhelm them with more planes of your own, and you can't sink Sicily to save your own carrier. Hence the emphasis was more on protection than number of planes.

Both are compromises, really, and both can be argued as the best choice for the specific context they were supposed to be used.

The other factor for the British was that pre-radar, intercepting incoming raids with fighters was simply not practical. Thus all aircraft had to be able to be struck in the hangar which had to be protected as fleet guns and armor were the only defense against air attack.

 

[kookbreaker]

I remember reading years ago that the american ships were fighting fires with foam on there carriers because of the highly flammable aviation fuel. And the Japanese navy was using water to fight fires. And if I remember correctly it was top secret information until after wwii. That in my opinion is one reason why the IJN lost so many carriers to damage from aircraft and torpedo attacks.

The bigger issue, especially at Midway, was that US Carriers, when expecting an attack, would purge all the fuel lines and fill them with carbon dioxide. The IJN did not. This mean that when fires started they had plenty of fuel lines to feed from and a single bomb hit was much harder to contain.

Having read “Shattered Sword” you sort of get this vibe that the IJN thought they were too good to get hit in the first place.

 

[kookbreaker]

It's a matter of context and compromise, though.

US and Japanese carriers were designed to have to deal with other carriers on the open sea. They just carried more planes -- especially the US ones -- to deal with the limited number of enemy planes and hopefully sink the enemy carrier before it sinks them. A decision was made, for that specific context, that hauling more planes to a fight is more important than armour.

RN carriers were designed for operation in the Mediterranean and in coastal areas, where you might be targeted by an actual airfield or two. You CAN'T overwhelm them with more planes of your own, and you can't sink Sicily to save your own carrier. Hence the emphasis was more on protection than number of planes.

Both are compromises, really, and both can be argued as the best choice for the specific context they were supposed to be used.

Yup. You can’t really argue for one or being ‘better’ without seeing how they’d be used. Then you have to appreciate how they would work out of their element.

Thus, it was doubtless awesome for the RN to simply sweep the wreckage of a Kamakazi over the side after it splatted on the deck like a hard boiled egg.

But of the other hand, your carrier’s throw weight is just 2/3s of the US carriers and if the deck *does* get damaged its a much bigger deal to repair.

 

[Trebuchet]

Having read “Shattered Sword” you sort of get this vibe that the IJN thought they were too good to get hit in the first place.

I need to re-read that, if I can find it since we moved. Tully's website is highly recommended, BTW.

 

[8enotto]

The bigger issue, especially at Midway, was that US Carriers, when expecting an attack, would purge all the fuel lines and fill them with carbon dioxide. The IJN did not. This mean that when fires started they had plenty of fuel lines to feed from and a single bomb hit was much harder to contain.

Having read “Shattered Sword” you sort of get this vibe that the IJN thought they were too good to get hit in the first place.

I watched a documentary where a crewman on one of the support aircraft carriers talked of the shells ripping it to bits but not of massive uncontrolled fires, Leyte gulf if I remember correctly.

Whatever they had in place that fuel was nowhere any big guns could hit it. Much like US aircraft had the rubber bladder in the fuel tank so small arms wouldn't cause a leak, German and Japanese planes just had metal tanks right behind the pilot seat.
A major difference in survival of the machine.

 

[HansMustermann]

Actually, only the Japanese lacked self-sealing fuel tanks. The Germans had them from the start of the war. They wouldn't have the best version of them until 1942, or at least that's the case for the BF-109E, but then it was a bit of an evolution for allied aircraft too.

 

[Andy_Ross]

RAF didn't adopt self sealing tanks until very late because they kept rejecting those submitted for test.
Part of the test involved dropping the tank from a height on to concrete. Of course they ruptured and were rejected. They didn't seem to get the protection from leaks after being hit by bullets was the important thing.

 

[lobosrul5]

Yup. You can’t really argue for one or being ‘better’ without seeing how they’d be used. Then you have to appreciate how they would work out of their element.

Thus, it was doubtless awesome for the RN to simply sweep the wreckage of a Kamakazi over the side after it splatted on the deck like a hard boiled egg.

But of the other hand, your carrier’s throw weight is just 2/3s of the US carriers and if the deck *does* get damaged its a much bigger deal to repair.

I have read somewhere that the Essex class carriers were so big, and held so many planes, that it was unwieldy to launch them all. Like the first ones in the air might have to wait an hour for the last planes. To me, Illustrious class carriers with USN planes would've been the ultimate combo for the Pacific war. And by and large that's what the Far East fleet had, they just didn't get in theater until pretty near the end of the war.

 

[Ian Osborne]

HMS Rodney. Half a battleship.

My great uncle served on that.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I have read somewhere that the Essex class carriers were so big, and held so many planes, that it was unwieldy to launch them all. Like the first ones in the air might have to wait an hour for the last planes. To me, Illustrious class carriers with USN planes would've been the ultimate combo for the Pacific war. And by and large that's what the Far East fleet had, they just didn't get in theater until pretty near the end of the war.

RN were the first to fly Corsairs from carriers.

Read Carrier Pilot by Brian Hanson.

It's his memoir of the Pacific War on RN Carriers.
He is one of the pilots that was sent to the USA to work out how to land a Corsair on a Carrier deck.

One of the classic WW2 memoirs.