Best Designed Ship of WWII

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Do they pay attention nowadays? [Non-partisan comment on the state of dumb-ass politicians everywhere.]

Most especially in the 1930's, the game was about something else. The naval build-up was just hanging on to the coattails of the overall situation.

Yeah, and that’s the ticket. Ok, one last hurrah, and then I’ll leave this to the warship guys since I’m just a merchie puke.

If you don’t have BBs, just what do you replace them with? This is the 30s, remember. Planes couldn’t do squat. Plane enthusiasts say planes can conquer the world, but they can’t even lift a 500# bomb or find their way out of a cloud.

So you are an Admiral, and what do you do? You know what you know. And the rest is hyperbolic owl fewmets. “Oh gosh, Admiral, forget all you ever learned about anything, and just trust me.” Kinda like somebody today saying get rid of all kinetic energy weapons and only use gigawat pulse plasma personal weapons. Ok … er … what? …

Yeah, alright, the ‘gun club’ got whacked by the imperatives of the day, but that don’t mean they were stupid. It just means they didn’t believe the overblown, hyperbolic, promote-me-instead-of-that-crusty-jerk, bilge the aviators were promoting.

Now, I believe the aviators were right (in hindsight), but at the time, and under the conditions, I think the ‘gun club’ was right, by it’s own standards. You must judge a time by it’s own values. That’s one big reason I think this ‘what if’ the Japs build a billion carriers crap is just so much owl dung. Kinda like ‘what if’ Klingons had smooth foreheads and good teeth.

btw, think what Tiornu says, is spot on. That's why I'm dropping my little bomb and letting the warship guys run with the ball. They know so much more than I do.

[witpqs]

In the 1930's the airplane/use of it to replace BB's still had to:

1) Develop Physically.

2) Develop Procedurally (catch-all for doctrine, logistics, tactics, training).

3) Be Proved.

With the hindsight of history we can now say at what point it would really work out, but at the time they were up against that choice about the odds of "taking a bullet to the head" if it didn't work or didn't work well enough.

Notice the wisdom of keeping BB's and working up aircraft was paid homage by all the really big players of the time.

[mikemike]

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

That's right, Tirpitz and the Kaiser were Mahanian, and that's the key to why they built up their fleet. Navalism and Imperialism went hand-in-hand, so while Germany had little in the way of overseas holdings to protect, that was taken as an argument for naval build-up.
Two rivals figured specifically in Germany's navalism. First, Britain. As bizarre as it seems, the naval race with Britain represented a German attempt to cement an alliance with Britain. (The word "duh" comes to mind.) Second, the US. Wilhelm whined incessantly about his inability to expand German presence in the New World and in the Pacific due to Germany's slow start into naval build-up; by the time the Germans developed a strong fleet, so did the Americans. Oh well.
Reading suggestion: Luxury Fleet by Herwig is a fine summary of the subject, a good place to start. You can then track down any number of articles by the same author. Oh, and another book, Politics of Frustration, which focuses on Germany's ongoing trouble with managing with the American factor. If you want to look into the underlying politics, Yesterday's Deterrent by Steinberg gives an excellent view of Tirpitz as a gifted politician.

I've always thought that there was a personal element involved in the naval question. You probably know that Wilhelm II had a crippled arm from birth. He was taught from early on to hide that taint by an emphatically imperious bearing. He must have had a major minority complex which he tried to compensate for by being loudmouthed and smart-alecky. He was also Queen Victoria's favorite grandchild and spent many summers at Osborne House, where he undoubtedly got bitten by the naval bug. His uncle Edward, Prince of Wales, perhaps understandably, couldn't stand him which was a burden for German-British relations as soon as he got the top job. I think Wilhelm felt neither he as emperor nor his country were taken seriously by Edward or Britain as a whole and that may have led to a reaction like "What - you think I've got a second-rate country? I'll get colonies, I'll get a navy - then you'll have to take me seriously". This would have played straight into Tirpitz' hands.

At that time, personal likes or dislikes of monarchs still had significant influence on foreign relations.

[Nikademus]

I've always kind of viewed Wilhelm II as a bit of a tragic figure. He was not evil, not like persons such as Hitler or Stalin. Ultimately I think he just wanted to be liked and respected. He had numerous faults which were exaserbated by an Imperial, priviledged upbringing but he had some good qualities as well.

Everything i've read on him states that he honestly never even thought of seeking war with Great Britian. He saw the building of the German fleet in a way as a sort of tribute, such was his love of the RN...and such was his nievety that he actually thought the British would see it that way. That reference I made earlier of two fleets passing each other in review and respect comes straight out of Masse. Wilhelm also believed that a strong Germany required a strong fleet and that played into Tirpitz's views perfectly. Unfortunately for Germany, the critical period saw Bernhard von Bulow in office as Chancellor and he was weak, fearing for his position so he supported the Kaiser and Tirpitz, diminishing his office's impact on Foreign policy. His successor Berthmann-Hollweg attempted to address the situation and negotiate a naval treaty with Britian but it ultimatley failed due in part to political gurantees required of Britian, and British skepticism and desire to not get tangled into binding agreements. Ultimately a case of too little, too late + Wilhelm's continued naieve interference and Tirpitz's assertion that the the building program was not the root cause of British anxiety and friction with Germany. The latter also argued that said friction was all the more reason to keep building up the German fleet!

[mikemike]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

In the 1930's the airplane/use of it to replace BB's still had to:

1) Develop Physically.

2) Develop Procedurally (catch-all for doctrine, logistics, tactics, training).

3) Be Proved.

With the hindsight of history we can now say at what point it would really work out, but at the time they were up against that choice about the odds of "taking a bullet to the head" if it didn't work or didn't work well enough.

Notice the wisdom of keeping BB's and working up aircraft was paid homage by all the really big players of the time.

As a warning the traditionalists could point to the failure of the French "Jeune École" of the late nineteenth century which proposed countering the British battle fleet by hordes of torpedo boats, ships of the time being particularly vulnerable to torpedoes. This was countered by the invention of the Torpedo Boat Destroyer.

[Tiornu]

I find it hard not to accept the caricature of Wilhelm as a child playing with toy boats in his bathtub. He was not above playing dress-up (wearing his RN uniform and finery), and he had fun drawing super-ships and showing them to his friends (he often gave them multiple funnels to make them look super-powerful). I will note, though, that he did advocate the ultimate capital ship, the fast batteship, years before it became a reality.
Strangely, he started as an advocate of Jeune Ecole.

[Hornblower]

ON task ... Fletchers, Baltimores, Essex..

[Dili]

What amazes me is that the Germans, having lived the example of monumentally failed policy, tried something similar again in the 1930's. Wasn't anyone paying attention?

I disagree i consider that WW2 was an World War only possible by Pacifism and its influence in the disfunctional French Society(i would say that today we are in a very similar position) and of course that History Accident called Hitler. But Hitler couldn't have made its moves if France had not give up being an European Power. Hitler played poker and it got a too big game after several "pass".

[Tiornu]

I disagree i consider that WW2 was an World War only possible by Pacifism and its influence in the disfunctional French Society

I don't think that disagrees with my statement. The ultimate German construction program was one that had no hopes of accomplishing anything apart from annoying the British. Hitler hoped he could divide Britain and France, and he would build up his navy only if he found Britain in opposition to his plans. So while the designers were using French capabilities as a benchmark, the designs would be built to oppose the British.

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: JWE . . . Now, I believe the aviators were right (in hindsight), but at the time, and under the conditions, I think the ‘gun club’ was right, by it’s own standards. You must judge a time by it’s own values. That’s one big reason I think this ‘what if’ the Japs build a billion carriers crap is just so much owl dung. Kinda like ‘what if’ Klingons had smooth foreheads and good teeth.

btw, think what Tiornu says, is spot on. That's why I'm dropping my little bomb and letting the warship guys run with the ball. They know so much more than I do.

Interesting stuff. You're probably right too. Hindsight, esp. 60 years later hindsight is 20/20.

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Agreed. Bismarck was not much interested in naval matters which was a plus here. He was a master at "the great game" as they called it then and he would rather have solidified a strong political alliance with Britain to balance France and Russia than build a big expensive fleet or, short of that, at least keep her neutral. I would point out too that Belfour wasn't suggesting that Germany have "no" fleet. He was just emphasizing the point that even had Germany no fleet at all, she'd still be the biggest power in Europe. A less ambitious naval program whose' objective was not specifically to rival and surpass the RN would have been acceptable to the British. Anything else and you have the very expensive arms race that developed. Bismarck would IMO have rather avoided it and could have rejected Tirpitz's ideas. As Tiornu pointed out, it ended up being a ruinous political decision and I don't believe it was inevitable that it must happen.

Yup... And all the German naval program succeeded in doing was emptying the Imperial treasury a bit faster and driving England and France (who did not like each other in the least) closer together.

[Jaroen]

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

The HSF was also built on the premise of a new Trafalgar. The difference is that the Grand Fleet was actually capable of winning it. It therefore never had to. The Grand Fleet was a monumental success, even if that success wasn't all that gratifying. The HSF, on the other hand, represents one of the greatest policy blunders of the century. The lesson: don't waste your money on a weapon that cannot win.

Of course the Grand Fleet was definately put to the test and certainly Jellicoe wasn't too certain about the possible outcome! I agree with Massie (just read "Castles of Steel") on the opinion it wasn't truly a definate taht the Grand Fleet would be able to withstand the HSF (so many factors which played a role).

As another argument in the discussion of building the HSF I think it was also not a given the British economy would be able to keep up with Germany's growing one. It was certainly larger but wasn't as modern as the German's and it had so much more international responsibilities concerning it's fleet's tasks. Yes, a war was in the making but isn't it true the balance of forces (fleet wise) was getting more advantageous to the Germans if more years would have been available for production. Assuming this argument is true (or close) it was not totally alien to have a fleet building program like the Germans had. It would push forward it's weight in international politics, and it did (not perse for the good though).

On the original subject of best design of a WW2 (war)ship I'd think of these factors:
1. Good seagoing (= fit crews, operational weaponry + machinery)
2. Effectiveness (= serving purpose of design in wartime)
3. Battle proven (= practical use in battle conditions)
4. War record (= being recognized with helping the war effort)

Putting it together I'd nominate some escort vessel (DE Buckley class or Loch frigates) and/or a fleet carrier (Essex class). Escorts played a huge part in winning the Battle o/t Atlantic but more generally speaking greatly secured sea transport (together with CVE's) and the fleet carrier enormously helped bringing the war to the enemy. These designs fulfilled all mentioned demands and defined the class for later builds.

[John 3rd]

Castles of  Steel is excellent.

For DDs I would throw out the Japanese "Special" Type.  Solid speed, heavy gun punch, and fantastic Torps.
 

[DuckofTindalos]

Yup, Kagero/Yugumo were excellent... Probably better all-round destroyers than the Akizukis.

[John 3rd]

I LOVE the Moon-Class for AA and CV Defense but the Special were all-around powerful ships.

[Jaroen]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I LOVE the Moon-Class for AA and CV Defense but the Special were all-around powerful ships.

Being curious and somewhat of a PitA; how do they equal against the four factors for comparison I put up a few posts before???

[Tiornu]

For DDs I would throw out the Japanese "Special" Type. Solid speed, heavy gun punch, and fantastic Torps.

Very few Special Type destroyers carried Long Lances, and only late in the war after they'd become irrelevant.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
For DDs I would throw out the Japanese "Special" Type.  Solid speed, heavy gun punch, and fantastic Torps.

Excellent for the war they were designed to fight. Unfortunately totally let down by their shabby AAA in the one they wound up fighting. Fletcher's were better all-around DD's..., and available in HUGE numbers.

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

For DDs I would throw out the Japanese "Special" Type. Solid speed, heavy gun punch, and fantastic Torps.

Very few Special Type destroyers carried Long Lances, and only late in the war after they'd become irrelevant.

Hmm, AFAIK all Kageros and Yugumos carried 61cm Type 93 torpedoes.

[anarchyintheuk]

I don't know enough about individual ships classes to have an opinion on best designed. Instead I'll ramble on about pre-WWI naval policy . . .

Massey's point about the construction of the High Seas Fleet was that its only real effect was to antagonize Britain. Prior to WWI Germany was recognized as the greatest continental power. Given Britain's history as the arbiter/balancer of power in Europe, does anyone really believe that it would ever have sided w/ Germany even w/o a fleet? Is there a scenario where this would be likely? I can't think of one, other than Europe uniting against Germany as in the 7 Years War. Not likely w/ AH tagging along w/ Germany at that time and Italy undecided at the least, hostile at the worst. Other than Britain's ruffled feathers I don't see much of a diplomatic downside to their construction of the High Seas Fleet. Even though ruinously expensive for Germany it also forced Britain, France and Russia to increased naval spending. Those countries (especially the latter two) would have been far better served devoting their resources to improving their armies. Considering the above and the eventual effects that the long-term blockade had upon Germany, I no longer dismiss Tirpitz's policy as I used to. Admittedly, I think neither Germany, nor any other power in Europe thought that a lengthy war was likely or could easily forsee what the consequences of that lengthy war would be.