lobosrul5
Philosopher
I'd have to disagree with that. HMS Warrior likely could've destroyed half the French navy on her own at time of her commission. The same cannot be said of HMS Dreadnought.
World's Worst Warships?
- Thread starter Trebuchet
- Start date
I'd have to disagree with that. HMS Warrior likely could've destroyed half the French navy on her own at time of her commission. The same cannot be said of HMS Dreadnought.
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 67,108
As for the Tillman class.
The RN had designs for equally large ships if there hadn't been treaties.
There were even speculative plans for Battleships with 20 inch guns as a response to the Yamato class.
Bringing speculative designs in to it is pointless.
The RN had designs for equally large ships if there hadn't been treaties.
There were even speculative plans for Battleships with 20 inch guns as a response to the Yamato class.
Bringing speculative designs in to it is pointless.
Last edited:
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
By all means, do make those cases yourself, rather than complain that someone else doesn't. Obviously you know something about those that we don't. Sharing that wisdom seems more productive than complaining about how, oy vey, none of us can read your mind and make the argument in your stead
I seem to remember proposing a BC times show-boat, so nobody's "stuck" on the Dreadnought.
Last edited:
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
Yes, but the point is: there's a reason why those remained just on paper. Someone recognized that they're not a good idea. So when someone actually builds a verbatim equivalent of those, you have to wonder why it's supposedly a good idea after all.
gypsyjackson
Master Poster
By all means, do make those cases yourself, rather than complain that someone else doesn't. Obviously you know something about those that we don't. Sharing that wisdom seems more productive than complaining about how, oy vey, none of us can read your mind and make the argument in your stead
Also, Kusnetsov has been discussed in this thread, first in 2019, then again in 2022 and 2023.
Kirov hasn’t - perhaps someone well-informed should make that case, as you say.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
Despite having one fewer turret, the South Carolina class had a far better turret layout.
I seem to recall the Litoral Combat Ship classes have also been mentioned
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
By me. Along with the Zumwalt class of utterly useless destroyers.
The US Navy is about as equally useless as the Army and Air Force, when it comes to developing new systems. Take the F-35. Please.
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
Well, generally a turret on the centre line is better than two on the wings. But it could be worse. E.g., Germany came up with the SMS Nassau, and it's hexagonal turret arrangement.
I think that's harsh on the F35.
But yes the Zumwalt class seems a bit silly too.. I'm not sure whether it is better or worse than the LCS. If you want a properly stealthy vessel for land attack, a submarine seems better.
The LCS as a concept might work, but trying to specify something like that with transoceanic range seems a constraint that will compromise the "Litoral Combat" part of the role.
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
LCS as a broad concept is very old and valid. After all, that's what we used monitors for, among other things. Hell, the original torpedo boats and torpedo boat destroyers (which ultimately evolved into the destroyer) were such short range, that, well, there's a reason they were called "boats" not "ships".
But yes, as you say, at some point there seems to have been a bit of a cock-up when it came to the requirements.
But yes, as you say, at some point there seems to have been a bit of a cock-up when it came to the requirements.
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 67,108
Wing turrets weren't so unexpected on Dreadnought. Pre-dreadnought's had their large secondary turrets in similar positions so replacing them with main turrets was the obvious thing, plus it gave a larger number of guns capable of firing ahead and it shortens the armoured citadel needed.
Drawbacks include needing an extra turret for broadside shooting and adding lots of weight off the centre line with it's effect on stability.
Superfiring turrets also have some negatives such as impact on stability and require a longer hull with increased armoured citadel size and longer main belt.
Exactly, and none of those had the 4,300 nautical mile range at 18 kts of the Independence class.
(whilst looking at the wiki page for the Lord Clive class monitors, I ended up looking at this page, which possibly would be a contender
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_18-inch_Mk_I_naval_gun#/media/File:HMS_Furious-1.jpg
That's quite a heavy gun for an aircraft carrier.
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
Well, do approved and laid down ships count, even if they weren't finished?
Then I propose the following abomination ordered by Stalin from the USA and laid down and IIRC actually had the keel finished before Barbarossa happened and Stalin, shall we say, had more pressing problems:
- imagine the later proposed Montana class, which is to say, imagined an enlarged Iowa, with 4x3 16" turrets (albeit, this one would have had the Colorado 16"/L45 guns, not the Iowa and Montana 16"/L50.) Basically take the front turrets of an Iowa, flip them around and put them on the back of an elongated back of the same, instead of the lone aft turret like the Iowa got
- now... take the length taken by the superstructure, i.e., the space between the pairs of front and end guns, double its length
- now replace that superstructure in the middle with a tall flight deck, just above the tops of the superfiring turrets
A.k.a., the abomination known as the USS Kearsarge in World Of Warships. Oh yes, it was literally approved and laid down. And while it was laid down IN the USA, it was for the USSR not for the USN.
The USA got stuck with the hull in mid-41, and left with the problem of what in the good name of Lucifer Morningstar to DO with it. Like, finish it, cut it down to a sane size, or What The Hell. They just decided that the sanest thing was to scrap it, since they couldn't come up with any use and plan that made any bloody sense.
(Which makes Wargaming's decision to give it to the USA even more ironic. But I guess if they gave the USSR one more OP ship, the community would have screamed hard enough to form a shockwave)
Then I propose the following abomination ordered by Stalin from the USA and laid down and IIRC actually had the keel finished before Barbarossa happened and Stalin, shall we say, had more pressing problems:
- imagine the later proposed Montana class, which is to say, imagined an enlarged Iowa, with 4x3 16" turrets (albeit, this one would have had the Colorado 16"/L45 guns, not the Iowa and Montana 16"/L50.) Basically take the front turrets of an Iowa, flip them around and put them on the back of an elongated back of the same, instead of the lone aft turret like the Iowa got
- now... take the length taken by the superstructure, i.e., the space between the pairs of front and end guns, double its length
- now replace that superstructure in the middle with a tall flight deck, just above the tops of the superfiring turrets
A.k.a., the abomination known as the USS Kearsarge in World Of Warships. Oh yes, it was literally approved and laid down. And while it was laid down IN the USA, it was for the USSR not for the USN.
The USA got stuck with the hull in mid-41, and left with the problem of what in the good name of Lucifer Morningstar to DO with it. Like, finish it, cut it down to a sane size, or What The Hell. They just decided that the sanest thing was to scrap it, since they couldn't come up with any use and plan that made any bloody sense.
(Which makes Wargaming's decision to give it to the USA even more ironic. But I guess if they gave the USSR one more OP ship, the community would have screamed hard enough to form a shockwave
)
Last edited:
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 67,108
Conversion from a Battlecruiser while it was being built. At a time when there wasn't really a fully developed idea of what an aircraft carrier should look like or even do.
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
Well, do approved and laid down ships count, even if they weren't finished?
Then I propose the following abomination ordered by Stalin from the USA and laid down and IIRC actually had the keel finished before Barbarossa happened and Stalin, shall we say, had more pressing problems:
- imagine the later proposed Montana class, which is to say, imagined an enlarged Iowa, with 4x3 16" turrets (albeit, this one would have had the Colorado 16"/L45 guns, not the Iowa and Montana 16"/L50.) Basically take the front turrets of an Iowa, flip them around and put them on the back of an elongated back of the same, instead of the lone aft turret like the Iowa got
- now... take the length taken by the superstructure, i.e., the space between the pairs of front and end guns, double its length
- now replace that superstructure in the middle with a tall flight deck, just above the tops of the superfiring turrets
A.k.a., the abomination known as the USS Kearsarge in World Of Warships. Oh yes, it was literally approved and laid down. And while it was laid down IN the USA, it was for the USSR not for the USN.
The USA got stuck with the hull in mid-41, and left with the problem of what in the good name of Lucifer Morningstar to DO with it. Like, finish it, cut it down to a sane size, or What The Hell. They just decided that the sanest thing was to scrap it, since they couldn't come up with any use and plan that made any bloody sense.
(Which makes Wargaming's decision to give it to the USA even more ironic. But I guess if they gave the USSR one more OP ship, the community would have screamed hard enough to form a shockwave
Gonna have to look that up. But one of my favorite bad warships is USS Kearsarge of 1900. Truly idiotic main AND secondary battery arrangement, with the secondary eight-inch guns mounted in a penthouse of sorts atop the primary 13 inch turrets. And not able to train separately.
The theory seems to have been that since it took a really long time between main battery salvos, why not fire the main battery, train to a secondary taget and fire two or three eight-inch salvos while the 13's were loading, then train back for the 13's?
Except that ammo handling for the big guns had improved, while handling for the secondary was now so insanely complicated that it took just as long.
At least the USN only built two of the class. Unlike the Virginia class using the same failed concept, of which there were five.
But wait, there's more! When I said "my favorite bad warship", I meant I really like her. Because in 1920, even before the general destruction of battleships under the Washington and London treaties, she was taken into the yard, had her armament and superstructure removed, and an enormous revolving crane installed.
As "USS Kearsarge, Crane Ship No. 1", she then provided stalwart service to the Navy for the next 35 years. Outlasting the WWII aircraft carrier which usurped her name.
Kearsarge never fired a shot in anger. But she installed the guns on many a ship that did.
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
Half-sister to the Glorious and Courageous, classed as "large light cruisers". Someone (Jackie Fisher) had the insane idea that the brits could force their way into the Baltic and invade northern Germany, if only they had ships with a shallow draft, big guns, and essentially no armor.
Saner heads prevailed, and all three wound up as carriers.
Glorious was later lost due to idiocy unrelated to her design.
So a Litoral Combat design?
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 67,108
Not really 'idiocy'
At the time the role of the fleet carrier was still being worked out.
Later in the war the escort carrier came along to do the same job Glorious was doing at the time she was sunk.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Are you thinking of Courageous? She was sunk U-boat hunting, which was excusable. Glorious was sunk because, AFAIK, her captain was so eager to court-martial his air commander, for refusing to send his aircraft wandering aimlessly over Norway to get picked off by German fighters, that he went straight across the North Sea, where the Kriegsmarine was known to be operating, without sending out any recce aircraft to watch out for battlecruisers. In other words, very much idiocy.
Dave