Best Designed Ship of WWII

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII

Post by Nikademus »

ORIGINAL: Tiornu
And has an unfortunate Dr. Phil fetish, it seems... Most disturbing...

Update: I'm told that the tattoo is not in fact Dr Phil but an ancient Toltec deity best remembered for inventing the Twinkee. Not only that, but it's not actually on the back of MY head, so clearly I have dodged a bullet.
On the subject of "best," it occurs to me that George Moore's Building for Victory offers an excellent account of how the RN decided which ships best fit its needs during WWII. I don't know any other book like it.

Dodging the Golden Twinkee hit aka from Warships1 days back in the 90's was always a desirable thing. [:)]
Moore huh? Adding that to the wish list. thx for the tip
mdiehl
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII

Post by mdiehl »

"Accuracy of the Gunfire of Main Batteries of United States Battleships" for the National Defense Research Committee. It dates to 1944 and uses Iowa as a benchmark for its comparisons of the different gunnery processes. The analysis is intense. One table summarizes hit percentages at four target angles (0, 30, 60, and 90 degrees) and projects the number of hits to be expected in each case at ranges listed in 2000-yard increments out to 34,000 yards. At that range and a target angle of 90deg, the radar ship would get 23.53% more hits; for 0deg, it's 10%. The greatest boost for radar appears to be at around 20,000 yards were the advantages are 26.83-32.38%.


Outstanding reply, thanks! I'll see if I can find that at the local U. It's the sort of thing they might have in the science and engineering library (where one can find all kinds of wondrous things... I once found a book there on how to construct a crude charcoal-fired smelter... the bees knees in the event of a zombie apocalypse).
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII

Post by Nikademus »

ORIGINAL: Tiornu
On the subject of "best," it occurs to me that George Moore's Building for Victory offers an excellent account of how the RN decided which ships best fit its needs during WWII. I don't know any other book like it.

Yikes......$211.00 off amazon. pricey!
User avatar
jwilkerson
Posts: 8250
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 4:02 am
Location: Kansas
Contact:

RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII

Post by jwilkerson »

Yea despite my better judgment I toss around various factors of "best".

Such as "days at sea per hull" a piece of data that might be useful to compare like classes.

Or sorties per day per hull" a piece of data that might be useful to compare classes of carriers.

But are these indicators of "best design" or of "best implementation"? The question asks about "Best Design" ... which implies some kind of separation between the concept of "design" and "implementation". But it is tough to evaludate designs separate from their implementation. So there I go getting hung up on the word puzzle implied by the question. I still think it was a question designed by Zeno's ancestors to get our brains all twisted up!
[:D]

WITP Admiral's Edition - Project Lead
War In Spain - Project Lead
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII

Post by Nikademus »

I think you called it best earlier. [:D]
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Yea despite my better judgment ...

I knew you couldn't stay away from this topic. It has an attraction ... like when a shoe gets pulled off walking through deep mud!

[:D]
Tiornu
Posts: 1126
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 7:59 pm

RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII

Post by Tiornu »

I'll see if I can find that at the local U.
Don't forget to check WorldCat, or just enlist your librarian to attempt an ILL. Sometimes you can even have some luck with a web search. Places like hyperwar and researcher@large have some great stuff lying around.
User avatar
Anthropoid
Posts: 3107
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 1:01 am
Location: Secret Underground Lair

RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII

Post by Anthropoid »

For offensive stuff, I think the question needs to be: which ship sank the most per hour of combat engaged? For non-offensive stuff: which ship had the highest ratio of survivability divided by hours of operation?
 
There are a host of similar possible measures, but IMO, measures like these are the only coherent way to define "best design." Anything else is just a discussion in aesthetics and 'on paper' analyses and projections.
 
And at the end of the day, defining any of the vessels of the nation which was forced to surrender unconditionally as "best design" seems questionable to me. If they had the "best design(s)" then why did they lose?
 
A possible response to that rhetorical question: even if a particular vessel or class of vessel was brilliant in its design, that could be totally irrelevant if that design is not implemented as part of a larger national strategy in such a way that it cumulativey leads the nation to victory.
 
Despite having the "best" helicopters, medical servvices, aircraft carriers, tanks, artillery and countless other designs during the Vietnam War, the United States was nonetheless forced to withdraw from Southeast Asia, denied victory, demoralized and humiliated by the Communists.
The x-ray is her siren song. My ship cannot resist her long. Nearer to my deadly goal. Until the black hole. Gains control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIlkyZ ... playnext=3
User avatar
Reg
Posts: 2793
Joined: Fri May 26, 2000 8:00 am
Location: NSW, Australia

RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII

Post by Reg »

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
ORIGINAL: Tiornu
On the subject of "best," it occurs to me that George Moore's Building for Victory offers an excellent account of how the RN decided which ships best fit its needs during WWII. I don't know any other book like it.

Yikes......$211.00 off amazon. pricey!


Whatcha talking about??? US$61.43 at Anchor Books, Grantham, United Kingdom. [;)]

Keep looking, IMHO Amazon is over rated.

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!
User avatar
Jaroen
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Amsterdam

RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII

Post by Jaroen »

@Tiornu: Thank you for the commendation and later reference on the George Moore book.
I will stick to the DK Brown book for starters. Seems like a good follow-up on the book I just finished: "Churchill's Navy: the ships, men and organisation 1939-1945; by Brian Lavery". A nice introduction which covers a wide range of related subjects putting it all in perspective. One anecdote I found surprising: "A normal salvo in a ship with twin turrets was to fire one gun in each turret, while the other reloaded. The nine-gun Rodney normally fired her nine main guns in salvoes of five and four, but when she took part in the sinking of the Bismarck in 1941 she also fired one eight-gun salvo and there were seven-gun ones. According to an American observer on board: Damage sustained from contusion of broadsides very considerable, causing undue discomfort to personnel and much work to make compartments habitable. Tile decking in washrooms, water closets and heads were ruptured throughout the ship. Urinals were blown off bulkheads, water pipes broken, and heads flooded. Longitudinal beams were broken and cracked in many parts of the ship having to be shored. ... The overhead decking ruptured and many bad leaks were caused by bolts and rivets coming loose. All compartments on the main deck had water flodding the decks."

What surprised me was both the non-use of full broadsides (nine-gun salvoes) and the damage involved with firing it's own main guns. I presume both were common on all big gun ships and perhaps even on the smaller gunned ones. How much does "good design" help on this?
herwin
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Sunderland, UK
Contact:

RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII

Post by herwin »

ORIGINAL: Jaroen

@Tiornu: Thank you for the commendation and later reference on the George Moore book.
I will stick to the DK Brown book for starters. Seems like a good follow-up on the book I just finished: "Churchill's Navy: the ships, men and organisation 1939-1945; by Brian Lavery". A nice introduction which covers a wide range of related subjects putting it all in perspective. One anecdote I found surprising: "A normal salvo in a ship with twin turrets was to fire one gun in each turret, while the other reloaded. The nine-gun Rodney normally fired her nine main guns in salvoes of five and four, but when she took part in the sinking of the Bismarck in 1941 she also fired one eight-gun salvo and there were seven-gun ones. According to an American observer on board: Damage sustained from contusion of broadsides very considerable, causing undue discomfort to personnel and much work to make compartments habitable. Tile decking in washrooms, water closets and heads were ruptured throughout the ship. Urinals were blown off bulkheads, water pipes broken, and heads flooded. Longitudinal beams were broken and cracked in many parts of the ship having to be shored. ... The overhead decking ruptured and many bad leaks were caused by bolts and rivets coming loose. All compartments on the main deck had water flodding the decks."

What surprised me was both the non-use of full broadsides (nine-gun salvoes) and the damage involved with firing it's own main guns. I presume both were common on all big gun ships and perhaps even on the smaller gunned ones. How much does "good design" help on this?

I can confirm the alternating fire salvos. It meant that fire was sustained and could be adjusted more frequently. I can also confirm that the Rodney and Nelson were overstressed by 9-gun broadsides. Those ships were cut-down 48000-ton battlecruisers designed at a time when the lessons of Jutland were not fully understood.
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
User avatar
DuckofTindalos
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII

Post by DuckofTindalos »

The USN found out at Tarawa that battleships were not good landing force flagships for the same reason.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
John Lansford
Posts: 2664
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 12:40 am

RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII

Post by John Lansford »

Rodney inflicted so much damage on herself in the Bismarck engagement that the German ship's survivors swore she had been hit by Bismarck.  Rodney was on her way to NY for refitting and had several hundred WWI vets on board as well; they certainly had a ring side seat to a once in a lifetime event!
User avatar
Anthropoid
Posts: 3107
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 1:01 am
Location: Secret Underground Lair

RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII

Post by Anthropoid »

Just want to understand this point: you guys are saying that this ship HMS Rodney, damaged herself by firing her guns?
 
I realize that she was a compromise reduced version of herself because of the Washington Treaty, but still, isn't that absurd?
 
Indeed, I'm reminded of this bumper sticker I saw the other day. Had a [picture of a Hummer] = "Small Penis." The other bumper stick that I can't put out of my head is that one with the Calvin character taking a leak on some other item/character and with "FEAR _THIS_!!"
 
As a non-expert, I just can't help but ask: were battleships actually good for ANYTHING? In the sum total of the history of the big gun, how many were sunk by non-big gun attacks (DDs, Torpedo boats, aircraft, shore gun fire, smaller ships, sabotage, accidents)? Compared to how many were sunk by fellow BBs?
 
I'm getting a sense here for a fascinating theme, and it is reflected in the name of the first/classic example: "Dreadnought" i.e., "I'm not Afraid!" Were these things really just a big psychout game combined with an egotistical contest in "Mines BIGGER!?"
The x-ray is her siren song. My ship cannot resist her long. Nearer to my deadly goal. Until the black hole. Gains control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIlkyZ ... playnext=3
User avatar
DuckofTindalos
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII

Post by DuckofTindalos »

The damaging yourself with the blast from your own guns thing is not a myth, Anthropoid.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
Anthropoid
Posts: 3107
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 1:01 am
Location: Secret Underground Lair

RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII

Post by Anthropoid »

I don't doubt its true, i.e., not a myth.
 
But isn't it absurd for a weapon system to damage itself in being used offensively!? I mean the whole point of a weapon is to hurt the enemy, not oneself!
The x-ray is her siren song. My ship cannot resist her long. Nearer to my deadly goal. Until the black hole. Gains control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIlkyZ ... playnext=3
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII

Post by witpqs »

I think one of the factors is that if you lack the ability to deal with a BB, which often means having your own BB, then they would devastate you. Another is that they are so valuable and costly that you will be careful about how you use/risk them.

When you look only at the end result it seems crazy. To understand it you have to look at the stages and consequences to situations such as "my opponent has them and I don't".

It does seem bizarre that Rodney and Nelson would be subject to so much damage from doing their own thing. Maybe Harry's comment is the root of it. They sure ain't gonna win any WWII best-designed contest!
User avatar
Anthropoid
Posts: 3107
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 1:01 am
Location: Secret Underground Lair

RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII

Post by Anthropoid »

I think one of the factors is that if you lack the ability to deal with a BB, which often means having your own BB
 
I have a faint inkling that the whole big gun infatuation/arms race period of the early decades of the century was in part irrational or at best 'speculative.' Until bigger and 'better' was actually tested in war who could have easily dismissed the fact that a rival nation was building these things as being 'inconsequential?"
 
But then I seem to recall repeated instances during the early phases in which smaller, faster ships managed to do a whole lot of damage to the big beasties.
 
The Era of the Big Guns has certainly been eclipsed, arguably the final chapter was Dec 7, though certainly no later than the end of WWII?
 
This is what I'd like to know: was it really just a waste of time? Were DDs and torpedo boats, aircraft, mines, etc., just as good for 'countering' enemy BBs as building your own BBs would have been?
 
It just seems to me that about the only thing these things were 'good' at was (sporadically) sinking other big gun ships, and that in itself seems to be largely a result of luck or tactical brilliance, and not so much a manifestation of the 'design' or how big it was.
 
The battlecruisers were supposed to be largely immune by being fast. If I understand it correctly, this just did not work. The heaviest were supposed to be good at gunning down enemy ships or bombarding enemy shore batteries. Based on some of the stuff being quoted here, and in other threads linked in this one, this doesn't really seemed to have worked very well either?
 
Were these things really just a gigantic waste of human effort, perhaps one of the BIGGEST wastes of human endeavour in all of natural history?
 
Just stop and think for a second about all the tens, probably even hundreds of thousands of person hours that went into a vessel like Indefagitable or Queen Mary; the incredible quantums of natural resources; the reallocation of national resources from other areas; the intellectual effort; the money; the lives . . . then *KABOOM* a couple lucky shots combined with poor ammo handling and the whole thing is in Davey Jones locker along with 99% of their crews.
 
As an anthropologist, that to me seems just about as crazy as the ritual small-scale warfare that borders on 'gaming' albeit with life-and-death consequences among groups like the Dani of Western New Guinea.
The x-ray is her siren song. My ship cannot resist her long. Nearer to my deadly goal. Until the black hole. Gains control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIlkyZ ... playnext=3
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII

Post by Nikademus »

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Just want to understand this point: you guys are saying that this ship HMS Rodney, damaged herself by firing her guns?

I realize that she was a compromise reduced version of herself because of the Washington Treaty, but still, isn't that absurd?

She fired more than a few salvoes at close range which required the gun muzzles to be depressed low to the deck. This in part was responsible for the damage she suffered from her own guns. The force of a BB firing it's own guns is an awe inspiring event that a simple physics equation can never convey.
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII

Post by Nikademus »

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

I have a faint inkling that the whole big gun infatuation/arms race period of the early decades of the century was in part irrational or at best 'speculative.' Until bigger and 'better' was actually tested in war who could have easily dismissed the fact that a rival nation was building these things as being 'inconsequential?"

Dreadnoughts were irrevecably tied to National prestige back in the day. The more you had, the more prestige and influence you had. It was, however not all about spit and polish and political maneuvering. Great Britian lived litterally by the sea and needed a strong fleet to protect her world wide empire. Thus she was compelled to oblige any nation with an arms race should that nation or nations seek to challenge her position. I can recommend a great book that goes into detail about how the BB fit into the times prior to WWII. "Castles of Steel" by Robert Masse. He also wrote "Dreadnought" which focuses even more so on the complicated relationship between Great Britian and Imperial Germany from the time Bismarck federated the German states to the beginning of WWI. Easy and very interesting reads.

Back to the Battleship. While it is true that they could be menanced by smaller, cheaper ships.. (mainly the torpedo boat and submarine), in reality the latter two could never fully make up for a lack of Capital Ships. Wartime experience also proved that torpedoing these beasties, if properly defended and conned, proved far more difficult than theoried back in the days of the French Jeune Ecole Being such a valuable weapon however, the Battleship suffered somewhat from it's own reputation and the navies of the 20th century during WWI, Britian excepted, were very recluctant to risk their national investments. Fleet in being concepts became fashionable and IMO, ultimately futile.

Its really not all that different today. Only the ship types have changed. We now have the large Aircraft Carrier, and the nuclear toting submarine. Only the most powerful nations on earth can afford and maintain these beasts which over the years whittled down, in large scale at least, to the US and former USSR (before the fall). Mission is reletively the same too....force projection, showing the flag, poltical maneuvering. The submarine is limited more than the BB in this sense as to use it's weapons would mean possibly the end of the world as we know it. Carriers remain the most flexible because they can use risk their aircraft while keeping a distance. The only fobile there now is that aircraft have become so expensive now that to lose even one to an enemy usually makes for great press. HA HA we shot down your billion dollar machine Yankee dog!
[:D]



Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”