Best Designed Ship of WWII

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Well, that didn't take too long to deteriorate into labelling a country as Nazis.

Where?

[DuckofTindalos]

BTW, no child in the world today can name any battleship of any fleet, because schools stopped teaching history (military and otherwise) many years ago.

[mikemike]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

There also was a serious design flaw or two: lack of paired screws meant that the ship could not be steered by engines if there was rudder damage - a flaw that led to her demise.

There was also some sort of systematic design flaw in the stern of large German warships - Bismarck's stern broke off when she sank... several other warships had similar catastrophic failures in their sterns structures.

This "no paired screws" stuff is pure nonsense. To steer by engines, all you need is propellers offset from the centerline of the ship. Bismarck had those. They couldn't steer her effectively by engines because the rudders were jammed in a deflected position which meant that the rudders could be counteracted by asymmetrical propeller thrust only at very low speed and that was aggravated by the sea state. The irony is that Bismarck and Tirpitz had practised taking each other in tow during training exercises in the Baltic. Had Tirpitz not been delayed by accidental damage, or had the Kriegsmarine accepted putting a ship into combat with the kind of half-trained crew Prince of Wales had, Bismarck and Tirpitz might have sortied together, as originally planned, which would have been quite a different proposition.

The stern weakness is a fact. Prinz Eugen lost its stern by a torpedo dropped by a Beaufort. On the other hand, USN cruisers tended to lose their bows when damaged, also a systemic design flaw. The last ship to demonstrate that was ARA General Belgrano in the Falklands.

I disbelieve rtrapasso's story about the Type XXI's vital plumbing being outside the pressure hull, too. It's true that the type had many detail design flaws which delayed their service entry, but nobody who ever designed a sub would put vital plumbing outside the pressure hull where it's exposed to pressure (and the type had a design depth of 135 metres, which due to the usual safety margins would have meant a maximum practical diving depth of beyond 300 metres). Such a mistake would have been caught at the latest by the acceptance trials team, and before that certainly by one of the participating shipyards, all of which had built dozens of submarines before. That only one Type XXI came to make a combat cruise although the first units were completed in 1944 was mainly due to the Kriegsmarine insisting on thorough, prolonged crew training; this training program was severely disrupted by air-laid mines in the exercise areas and by bombing attacks on the yards. Some crews worked up several different boats, one after the other, only to have them sunk by bombs in harbor before they were combat-ready. And the boats that reached their operational bases in Norway were held back by the flotilla commanders for diverse reasons. Only U2511 sortied on a combat patrol that was curtailed by the German capitulation.

[DuckofTindalos]

Actually, U-3008 also left on a combat patrol before the capitulation. So that makes two boats, out of 118 commissioned Type XXI's.

[DuckofTindalos]

And how did I know that this would turn into another Bismark thread? Gee...[8|]

[mikemike]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

And how did I know that this would turn into another Bismark thread? Gee...[8|]

I'd never vote for Bismarck as the best-designed ship of WWII. That ship is a prime example for the cynical remark that weapons systems are always designed for the previous war.

I'd vote for the Type S-100 Schnellboot. Fast, seaworthy, adaequately armed. The basic design was good enough to be extrapolated into fast attack craft that are still in service all over the world. It could operate in weather conditions that would have smashed those much-vaunted PT Boats into kindling in a few minutes, PT Boats being combat ineffective anyway against anything bigger than Daihatsus. No wonder that their most frequent cause of loss was running aground. And the Schnellboote were powered by the kind of Diesel engines the US industry would have been unable to duplicate. (Even today, no US corporation is able to design high-performance diesels. Oh, you can get nice, reliable 4000 h.p. diesels for railways use. If you are prepared to live with 40 tons of empty weight. No wonder the M1 Abrams is powered by a gas turbine.)

[Gem35]

USS Enterprise was pretty successful, how come nobody has mentioned her in this thread?

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: mikemike

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

There also was a serious design flaw or two: lack of paired screws meant that the ship could not be steered by engines if there was rudder damage - a flaw that led to her demise.

There was also some sort of systematic design flaw in the stern of large German warships - Bismarck's stern broke off when she sank... several other warships had similar catastrophic failures in their sterns structures.

This "no paired screws" stuff is pure nonsense. To steer by engines, all you need is propellers offset from the centerline of the ship. Bismarck had those. They couldn't steer her effectively by engines because the rudders were jammed in a deflected position which meant that the rudders could be counteracted by asymmetrical propeller thrust only at very low speed and that was aggravated by the sea state. The irony is that Bismarck and Tirpitz had practised taking each other in tow during training exercises in the Baltic. Had Tirpitz not been delayed by accidental damage, or had the Kriegsmarine accepted putting a ship into combat with the kind of half-trained crew Prince of Wales had, Bismarck and Tirpitz might have sortied together, as originally planned, which would have been quite a different proposition.

The stern weakness is a fact. Prinz Eugen lost its stern by a torpedo dropped by a Beaufort. On the other hand, USN cruisers tended to lose their bows when damaged, also a systemic design flaw. The last ship to demonstrate that was ARA General Belgrano in the Falklands.

I disbelieve rtrapasso's story about the Type XXI's vital plumbing being outside the pressure hull, too. It's true that the type had many detail design flaws which delayed their service entry, but nobody who ever designed a sub would put vital plumbing outside the pressure hull where it's exposed to pressure (and the type had a design depth of 135 metres, which due to the usual safety margins would have meant a maximum practical diving depth of beyond 300 metres). Such a mistake would have been caught at the latest by the acceptance trials team, and before that certainly by one of the participating shipyards, all of which had built dozens of submarines before. That only one Type XXI came to make a combat cruise although the first units were completed in 1944 was mainly due to the Kriegsmarine insisting on thorough, prolonged crew training; this training program was severely disrupted by air-laid mines in the exercise areas and by bombing attacks on the yards. Some crews worked up several different boats, one after the other, only to have them sunk by bombs in harbor before they were combat-ready. And the boats that reached their operational bases in Norway were held back by the flotilla commanders for diverse reasons. Only U2511 sortied on a combat patrol that was curtailed by the German capitulation.

i stand by both my assertations, and can produce references if you want (i'll have to find them, though first).

The Bismarck had several exercises where she tried to steer by engines with no damage (during training) - and basically could not accomplish it. True, the rudder might have doomed her anyway, although that is another debate.

i've read the stuff about the type XXI boats having the piping outside the pressure hull in more than one place and (from what i remember) reputable sources.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Actually, U-3008 also left on a combat patrol before the capitulation. So that makes two boats, out of 118 commissioned Type XXI's.

True - but did either see actual combat? AFAIK - neither did...

Supposedly one made a "dummy run" against a CA, but did not fire as it was after the surrender.

[1275psi]

trying to get back on track............

If you are going for best design -then what are you trying to define

"Ability to get assigned job done"?
"Ability to adopt to changing demands -all ships gain weight -not a good design if you cannot "add stuff"
Reliability - no ship is well designed if it cant go to sea often
Economy - can you build it for a good price
And -as its ships we are talking about -can it actually operate in any sea-any time -and still fight from atlantic gales to sweltering tropics
Did it have a good range, and a good speed
And finally -did it have a long life -a good sign that the design was right.

Based on that -the Iowas, the Midway seem to be in the bracket
But my favourite would be the County class cruisers -They easily fullfill all the above

There is more to good design than just guns and armour guys -

My 2 cents

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Shark7
....

Cruisers: Gonna give this category to the Brooklyn CLs. 15 6" guns are just plain scary. And at least one of the class was still in active service in the early 1980s.
...

I won't add to the rest, but as for the Brooklyns';
They not only carried class A armor (better quality and thicker in the vitals than other nations' CA 'treaty cruisers...including Japans'), their 6" L47's were very long range and fired very heavy shells (for 6") and very fast firing (her fifteen gun battery could fire at a 'minimum' of 120 rounds per minute - 8 to 10 rounds per tube, per minute).
Combined with effective advanced fire control arrangements, RADAR ...and some experience by crewman ...they were just devastating to surface ships within 20,000 yards.
That is why the US Navy sought only Brooklyn/St.Louis/Cleveland class CLs for night engagements after Guadalcanal.
A good example was Montpelier (granted - a Cleveland) fired over 1,800 rounds of 6/47" & 5/38" in only 15 minutes at the first battle of Kula Gulf in early '43...and then went on later that night to fire over 700 rds of 6" during the nights planned bombardment.

Anyway, national-pride-be-damned, the Brooklyn's were excellent ships for their day.

EDIT: Not to mention the Savannah single handedly turning away the Herman Goering Panzer Division in the Gulf of Gela at Sicily in 1943...

[rtrapasso]

In Re: Type XXI - see Clay Blair's book Hitler's U-Boat War - The Hunted 1942-1945 (Blair has been accused of being way over the top in being pro-U-boat, so if anything he is tends to be too forgiving of their faults) - pages 709-710 (paperback edition) - thi s passage from page 710 (discussing the faults of the type XXI): "Impractical Hydraulic System. The main lines, accumulators, cylinders and pistons of the hydraulic gear for operating the diving planes, rudder, torpedo-tube outer doors, and antiaircraft gun turrets on the bridge were too complex and delicate and were located outside (emphasis in the original text, not mine) the pressure hull. This gear was therefore subject to saltwater leakage, corrosion, and enemy weaponry. It could not be repaired from inside the pressure hull."

Blair devotes another section describing the finding of a U.S. assessment team.

Other problems of the Type XXI mentioned:

- Poor Structural Integrity (actual diving depth was less than the later type VII).
- Underpowered Diesel Engines
- Poor Habitability and Sanitation (i.e.: drinking and washing water was interconnected.)

Other authors have mentioned poor surface maneuverability, but this is a problem common to streamlined subs in general.


As for the stern weakness of the Bismarck and other large German ships - several developed rather catastrophic failure (not just the CA mentioned) but it is late and i should have been asleep 1 hour ago, so i won't pursue this at the moment... [>:]

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

I like Vanguard, but she was designed only to use up some spare guns, so does not really count...

She never saw service in WW2 either, but by all accounts she was a good design. Nice and stable in the North Atlantic...

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

In Re: Type XXI - see Clay Blair's book Hitler's U-Boat War - The Hunted 1942-1945 (Blair has been accused of being way over the top in being pro-U-boat, so if anything he is tends to be too forgiving of their faults)

I think you have that backwards [;)]. Blair was accused of being way over the top in terms of being anti-Uboat. His rather negative accessment from visiting the captured Type XXI at the end of the war and his mentioning of his service's acomplishments in the forward of Volume one didn't help matters, nor his continual and chronic use of negative adjetives when describing specific German uboat types within the text of his volumes. Still, I think his main gist was to disabow anyone who felt that in practical terms, the Type XXI would have been able to change anything in terms of the course of the war. I can see that POV given that to this day one sees simplistic arguments that usually revolve around a central tennant that "if only Hitler had built more Uboats things would have been different". Going back to the type XXI, the most salient point IMO, was the poor quality of construction due to forced and fractured labor practices. (Modular construction)

As a design though, it contained many innovative features of interest for the victors.

[hawker]

My dear mdiehl,i am very far from be an axis fanboy.
[;)]

[ChezDaJez]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

True. I believe the Russians based their Whiskey class on them, though.

Yes, as was the Romeo and to a lesser extent, the Zulu and Golf. However, most of the deficiencies in the German and these Russian designs were largely corrected with the Foxtrot class.


Chez

[goodboyladdie]

ORIGINAL: hawker

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: hawker



[8|]

P.S. Roman legions are overrated too[:D]

The Bismarck assessment is pretty much what i've read from numerous sources.

There also was a serious design or two: lack of paired screws meant that the ship could not be steered by engines if there was rudder damage - a flaw that led to her demise.

There was also some sort of systematic design flaw in the stern of large German warships - Bismarck's stern broke off when she sank... several other warships had similar catastrophic failures in their sterns structures.

Bismarck seen the battle,that is main point. So,you can see that she has flaws.

For example, Iowas NEVER seen real battle,if you exclude bombarding Iraq,thus you cant see if Iowas has flaws or not. You can see just big "IF"

Bismarck sunk pride of RN in five minutes and criple next pride of RN in one battle. Best navy ever hunt this ship,and all Home Fleet of that best navy stays in harbors just to be close IF Tirpitz make on sea.
THAT IS MEAN SOMETHING.

Now and fifty years from now,when you ask someone which ship you remember from WW2 era,it will be Bismarck.
Iowas,Yamatos etc. will cover shade of history,but Bismarck will be remembered.
Even five years old kid knows about this ship[;)]

The Royal Navy Battleships were not world beaters. Some might appear in the good looks thread, but they'll not make it in here. Bismark was a better design than those she faced, but not the best. The fact that that other navies had modernised their capital ships while the RN performed only partial modernisation on a handful was shameful. The brave men of the Hood paid for the lack of expenditure. It is the men that made the Royal Navy the best (initially) - they had not had world beating ship designs since the time of Fisher.

[goodboyladdie]

ORIGINAL: Big B

ORIGINAL: Shark7
....

Cruisers: Gonna give this category to the Brooklyn CLs. 15 6" guns are just plain scary. And at least one of the class was still in active service in the early 1980s.
...

I won't add to the rest, but as for the Brooklyns';
They not only carried class A armor (better quality and thicker in the vitals than other nations' CA 'treaty cruisers...including Japans'), their 6" L47's were very long range and fired very heavy shells (for 6") and very fast firing (her fifteen gun battery could fire at a 'minimum' of 120 rounds per minute - 8 to 10 rounds per tube, per minute).
Combined with effective advanced fire control arrangements, RADAR ...and some experience by crewman ...they were just devastating to surface ships within 20,000 yards.
That is why the US Navy sought only Brooklyn/St.Louis/Cleveland class CLs for night engagements after Guadalcanal.
A good example was Montpelier (granted - a Cleveland) fired over 1,800 rounds of 6/47" & 5/38" in only 15 minutes at the first battle of Kula Gulf in early '43...and then went on later that night to fire over 700 rds of 6" during the nights planned bombardment.

Anyway, national-pride-be-damned, the Brooklyn's were excellent ships for their day.

EDIT: Not to mention the Savannah single handedly turning away the Herman Goering Panzer Division in the Gulf of Gela at Sicily in 1943...

I agree. Do not forget the effect Brooklyn had on the other designs being touted (Cleveland and Baltimore). It has to be the best design. The evidence is enormous to support this.

[goodboyladdie]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

In Re: Type XXI - see Clay Blair's book Hitler's U-Boat War - The Hunted 1942-1945 (Blair has been accused of being way over the top in being pro-U-boat, so if anything he is tends to be too forgiving of their faults)

I think you have that backwards [;)]. Blair was accused of being way over the top in terms of being anti-Uboat. His rather negative accessment from visiting the captured Type XXI at the end of the war and his mentioning of his service's acomplishments in the forward of Volume one didn't help matters, nor his continual and chronic use of negative adjetives when describing specific German uboat types within the text of his volumes. Still, I think his main gist was to disabow anyone who felt that in practical terms, the Type XXI would have been able to change anything in terms of the course of the war. I can see that POV given that to this day one sees simplistic arguments that usually revolve around a central tennant that "if only Hitler had built more Uboats things would have been different". Going back to the type XXI, the most salient point IMO, was the poor quality of construction due to forced and fractured labor practices. (Modular construction)

As a design though, it contained many innovative features of interest for the victors.

And it is as a design that it must be considered here. It was the first proper step towards the true submarine. The innovations paved the way for future - the path that lead to modern SSNs started with the Type XXI. Without a doubt, if it had appeared ready for action for late 1943, the Allies would have had great difficulty getting supplies and troops across the Atlantic. All convoy escorts, bar Fleet Destroyers (and CVEs) would have been obsolete. This sub design had more impact than any other. The Type VIIC was a slightly improved WWI design - the Type XXI was a step into the future...

[goodboyladdie]

If CLAAs are being considered as a seperate category, the Brits might have a chance of winning one! Their 5.25 equipped AA Cruisers were superb ships and were not as cramped and top heavy as the Atlantas.