Best Designed Ship of WWII

[Fishbed]

Many things at wars are good or bad luck, Stalingrad,Kursk,PH,Leyte etc...

!
You'll have to tell me where was the "good or bad luck" in Kursk... [&:]
The bad luck would have been Hitler dealing with operational warfare, but then it's not only a Zitadel matter (thanksfully though) [:'(]

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

Many things at wars are good or bad luck, Stalingrad,Kursk,PH,Leyte etc...

!
You'll have to tell me where was the "good or bad luck" in Kursk... [&:]
The bad luck would have been Hitler dealing with operational warfare, but then it's not only a Zitadel matter (thanksfully though) [:'(]

Russian luck...
Would Hitler have listened to von Mannstein and let him operate... - there would be no more Russians when they reach Berlin...

[pasternakski]

All seriousness aside, I find myself (against my initial impulses) thinking maybe Yamato/Musashi were the best designs. After all, just getting something that big into the water and performing in anything like a seaworthy manner was a huge accomplishment given the technology of the times. They were plenty good looking ships, too.

Of course, this doesn't address the argument that maybe all those resources might have been better used elsewhere. Still, they were mighty impressive and were the giant "bogeymen" that put fear in the hearts of many an Allied admiral.

I've always had kind of an inclination for the Iowas, but I dunno. They did yeoman service escorting the carriers, but got scant opportunity to show their mettle as surface combatants (and the results were mixed at best the few times they did). Beautiful ships, though, and mighty powerful, too.

As for carriers, I can see the point of nominating the Shokakus, Taihos, Essexes, and even the Yorktowns. I've always liked the most modern of the Japanese destroyers and the biggest of their heavy cruisers (anything decent with Type 93 torpedoes on it has to be considered).

Bismarck? Nah. Undergunned. Certainly better than anything the British had in 1941, but soon outclassed in many navies (a U.S. treaty battleship would have given this barge a heckuva thrashing, I think, with the modern armor, nine 16 inch rifles, and optical and fire control gear at least on a par with what Bismarck carried).

[Iridium]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

All seriousness aside, I find myself (against my initial impulses) thinking maybe Yamato/Musashi were the best designs. After all, just getting something that big into the water and performing in anything like a seaworthy manner was a huge accomplishment given the technology of the times. They were plenty good looking ships, too.

Of course, this doesn't address the argument that maybe all those resources might have been better used elsewhere. Still, they were mighty impressive and were the giant "bogeymen" that put fear in the hearts of many an Allied admiral.

I've always had kind of an inclination for the Iowas, but I dunno. They did yeoman service escorting the carriers, but got scant opportunity to show their mettle as surface combatants (and the results were mixed at best the few times they did). Beautiful ships, though, and mighty powerful, too.

As for carriers, I can see the point of nominating the Shokakus, Taihos, Essexes, and even the Yorktowns. I've always liked the most modern of the Japanese destroyers and the biggest of their heavy cruisers (anything decent with Type 93 torpedoes on it has to be considered).

Bismarck? Nah. Undergunned. Certainly better than anything the British had in 1941, but soon outclassed in many navies (a U.S. treaty battleship would have given this barge a heckuva thrashing, I think, with the modern armor, nine 16 inch rifles, and optical and fire control gear at least on a par with what Bismarck carried).

I tend to think the Yamato class to be well designed, even great (in some instances, such as hull form). However, overall, I consider the design to be of good quality but not anything near 'the best'. If anything Yamato was the best construction feat in it's time but I'd disagree with it being the best design.

[hawker]

Here is the nice picture of Tirpitz,i wonder were that man survive,

[Hornblower]

so did we reach an answer?  thought i'd bring this thread back to life

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

I am going to get in so much trouble for posting this picture of the best designed ship. [:D]

We did reach an answer. THIS is the best designed ship: NCC-1701 (No bloody A, B, C, or D)!

[John Lansford]

"Best designed ship of WWII" is too big a category; there would be a "best ship" of each class but since they all have different missions, none could be said to be "best" of all the warships.  Could the Bismarck or South Dakota find and sink a submarine?  Could a destroyer withstand the impact of a 15" or 16" shell?  Could a carrier bombard a shore position?  Those are all different roles and there was a class of ship capable of being "best" at that role, but no one ship class could be considered best because there's not one ship that could do everything.

[Japan]

ORIGINAL: hawker



Many things at wars are good or bad luck, Stalingrad,Kursk,PH,Leyte etc...
I admit that Bismarck has very good luck striking the Hood in magazines,but also has a good gunnery crew.
Furthermore, brittish has very good luck to hit Bismarck in rudders. Without that lucky hit Bismarck would flee to safety of Brest.
Also,PoW has a very good luck because shells from Bismarck refuse to explode when hitting Brittish BB.
Not a single BB in the world would not stand a chance to force that brittish engaged in hunt for Bismarck. And remember that KGVs was in that time best BBs allies has. Far better than those US have in PH.

One more thing,if KGV and Rodney ever engage Bismarck,do you really think that Bismarck would stay to fight. No,she will use superior speed to run away and hunt for for convoys or something less dangerous.

Well, I do not want to call Stalingrad bad luck... it has nothing to do with luck, that was simply Incompetence from Hitlers part.

First he sent the Armor from the 4th to mountain areas and bad terrain towards Caucasus, instead of exploiting the perfect terrain around Stalingrad and encircling the city with it, and then he used the Infantry to push through the plains... instead of using the armor for it. Then he eventually makes a direct assault on it. Von Paulus don't dare to protest, and it becomes the largest military disaster in History of mankind. It is Absurd!.
He should NEVER initiated a Direct Assault on a Urban City like that, it is madness and incompetence at a very high level.

Eisenhower said it well, "If Hitler had been replaced in 1942, Soviet would been a part of Germany and D-Day would never happened".



PS: If you ever visit Volgograd i recommend you take a trip to the City Museum, it is great, and basikly 20% of the City is a museum, I have been there twise, and it is great.. absolutely recommend you to take a visit to it

[Japan]

Also, regarding the question... The best Designed ship in WW2, well that is of course a easy one,

The XXI Submarine of course, was used until what 1970's by several nations ?



And to the ones thinking the IOWA Class was the best, I have only 1 thing to say:

Battleships are Obsolete, and is not worth the cost to build and maintain.
Warfere should be seen from a cost vs preformance perspective, and all factors are relative and dynamic.
However they do add a little National Prestige, and can be usefull as a Diplomatic Tool

(Ie. when nations don't do as you like, you deploy a Combat Fleet to sail arround in their area, this marks your point, we did it in the 1600 century and we still do it today)

[Tiornu]

I nominate America's Barnegat class.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

I nominate America's Barnegat class.

FUSO!!!!!! [;)]

[Local Yokel]

I have an increasingly soft spot for the Tachibanas as an inexpensive, serviceable class of escort destroyer.

[Speedysteve]

Idiot![;)]

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

I nominate America's Barnegat class.

FUSO!!!!!! [;)]

Which half?

[mdiehl]

Any discussion of best design has to consider the task for which designed. So there will never be one single best design.
 
South Dakota class. Pound for pound the most lethal gunship and AAA platform in any navy and sufficiently armed to sink any ship afloat for the day.

Type XXI submarine. Best in type, although ASW technology would have rendered it less effective than wunderweapon enthusiasts imagine.

LVT. When you want to put stuff ashore in a hurry...

C2. When you want to put stuff on a dock in a hurry...

USS Enterprise... takes a pounding and keeps pounding back.

John C. Butler class DE. Hell on subs, and wins the top prize for "punching above its own weight class" (see USS Samuel B. Roberts).

[Tiornu]

I have an increasingly soft spot for the Tachibanas

The humble designs are often overlooked. I picked Barnegat for that reason. I might also have said the treasury class cutters. For the British, how about Abercrombie? For the Soviets, the armored cutters. Bougainville for the French. The S-boats for the Germans, though they go against this trend, being relatively elaborate. And the Italians may have had the best torpedo boats.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

South Dakota class. Pound for pound the most lethal gunship and AAA platform in any navy and sufficiently armed to sink any ship afloat for the day.

SD over the Iowa class?

USS Enterprise... takes a pounding and keeps pounding back.

You mean Yorktown class over Essex class?

I think you have chosen two specific ships for emotional attachment rather than best classes. Of course you are entitled, but it does not answer the question that was posed. SD a better AA or gunship platform than the Iowas? Yorktown class better than the Essex class? I disagree.

[JWE]

Imho, the best overall warship design of War-II was the Type-21 sub. It was the only design that had significant impact on post-war warships. For the rest, I submit SD over Iowa, over Bismarck, over Yamato and Yorkie over Essex over Taiho, were questions of degree, rather than scale or functionality.

The only vessel that significantly impacted post war warship design was the Type-21.

[Tiornu]

The only vessel that significantly impacted post war warship design was the Type-21.

I don't understand that claim. I agree that the Type XXI was revolutionary, but there's no combat experience to gauge how successful the boats would have been. They may even have been the best subs of the war, but as mdiehl has noted, it's easy to get overly enthusiastic. Isn't anyone concerned about housing the hydraulics outside the pressure hull? What are the results even if the depth charges are not very close?