Best Designed Ship of WWII

[John Lansford]

The South Dakotas had probably the best mix of speed, armor and firepower of any battleship ever built.  The Iowas sacrificed some armor for the ability to steam 33+ knots; the SoDaks made do with their 27 knot maximum but had thicker and better placed armor, plus the same number of big guns.  Getting six more knots but at the cost of thinner armor and 20,000+ more tons displacement isn't all that good a tradeoff.

[mdiehl]

I think you have chosen two specific ships for emotional attachment rather than best classes.

It's not my habit to allow emotions to affect critical analysis.

SoDak class over Iowas because in my view the Sodaks were pound for pound better. That's not a knock against Iowas, it's merely acknowledgement that the SoDaks could hold their own in any conceivable engagement, even against ships that displaced substantially more. The Iowas were better BBs still. But the SoDaks were almost as good as the Iowas, and that is a singular design achievement for a treaty-compliant BB.

Enterprise but I suppose could have said Yorktown class. In my view they performed better under heavy damage than the Essex class. Essexes were better designed in re command and control facilities of course.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Tiornu
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?

The question was, what was the best design. Not what was the best this or that. Don't recall making a claim, I gave my opinion, and the reasons therefor. I think most people will understand where I'm coming from, even if you don't.

If you don't like it, post your own opinion.

[witpqs]

@John Lansford:

They also had the 16"/50's instead of the 16"/45's. How much more stable a gun platform were they?

I'm not an expert on the differences among the US WWII BB classes, but I know the Iowas were regarded as meaningful improvement on the previous classes. I'm skeptical of just pulling some stuff out of the stats like armor vs speed.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Tiornu
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?

The question was, what was the best design. Not what was the best this or that. Don't recall making a claim, I gave my opinion, and the reasons therefor. I think most people will understand where I'm coming from, even if you don't.

If you don't like it, post your own opinion.

I lean toward the Type XXI as well, but admittedly I have less knowledge to base my opinion on. Regarding combat, yes the XXI had nearly zero experience to go on. Still, IIRC they maneuvered to firing - let's call it 'sure kill' - position without even being detected on a couple of occasions at war's end. Didn't fire because they had been ordered not to engage allied shipping. This might give a hint at the answer to your question - they might have been so much less likely to be effectively engaged by depth charges that the weaknesses were worth it.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I think you have chosen two specific ships for emotional attachment rather than best classes.

It's not my habit to allow emotions to affect critical analysis.

SoDak class over Iowas because in my view the Sodaks were pound for pound better. That's not a knock against Iowas, it's merely acknowledgement that the SoDaks could hold their own in any conceivable engagement, even against ships that displaced substantially more. The Iowas were better BBs still. But the SoDaks were almost as good as the Iowas, and that is a singular design achievement for a treaty-compliant BB.

Enterprise but I suppose could have said Yorktown class. In my view they performed better under heavy damage than the Essex class. Essexes were better designed in re command and control facilities of course.

Understand your reasoning. I would go with the Iowas over the SD's because they were still a WWII design. The Yorky's over Essex - nah. I think the Essex's held up well under damage and (IIRC) had better handling for the A/C (not just flight ops). I know size was an issue but it's my understanding that they learned from the Yorktown design, too.

Must also go back to what John (JWE) said in that with these designs the difference is really just matter of degree.

[Anthropoid]

Wow, never knew about this thread . . . What amazes me, as a social scientist without a lot of expertise in naval design or the actual history is what appears to be a more or less _total_ lack of consensus among you guys! [:D] A bunch of very smart, very knowledgeable fanboys of the period!? That in itself is interesting.
 
Let me make a suggestion, define "best design" in some measurable, testable way?
 
For example: (1) enemy losses inflicted per dollar cost or /operating costs (including crew) etc.
(2) survivability divided by mission effectiveness (ala Terminus' point about RN CVs not carrying enough planes)?
(3) strategic impact?
 
Thinking in terms of (1), I would guess that the earlier German U-boats sank pound-for-pound more than any other class? Sure there may have been more cool or advanced designs later in the war, but if there is not real proof of being 'best' how can you objectively say as much . . . not to say having a 'favorite' design is invalid, but not exactly the same thing as 'best design.'
 
In terms of (2) weren't American CVs pretty legendary? In fact, weren't most US ships pretty well off in terms of survivability as a result of damage control?
 
For (3) what about the "Liberty" ships? They were cheap, and did the job well!

[Terminus]

I think a very important aspect of the design of any weapons system is how easily it can be produced in meaningful numbers. On that account, the Type XXI was not particularly impressive.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I think a very important aspect of the design of any weapons system is how easily it can be produced in meaningful numbers. On that account, the Type XXI was not particularly impressive.

But it was a later design. So the lack of time to make those production refinements has to be looked at in the same light as the lack of time for combat experience and, in the case of other ship designs, outright differences in combat experience due to opportunity.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Let me make a suggestion, define "best design" in some measurable, testable way?

Takes the fun out of it. How can you put a value on sharks with laser beams on their heads? Or measure the combat value of throwing a shoe (because I mean, who throws a shoe anyway, really?).

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I think a very important aspect of the design of any weapons system is how easily it can be produced in meaningful numbers. On that account, the Type XXI was not particularly impressive.

But it was a later design. So the lack of time to make those production refinements has to be looked at in the same light as the lack of time for combat experience and, in the case of other ship designs, outright differences in combat experience due to opportunity.

By VE-Day, the Germans had built 118 Type XXI's. Those boats, combined, conducted a single war patrol and sank no enemy ships. Unless you're trying to tell me that Nazi Germany designed the Type XXI in order to facilitate post-war submarine development for its enemies, I repeat that I don't find it very impressive.

[Terminus]

By comparison, the Type XXIII submarine was built in 61 copies, and sank four enemy ships on six war patrols. I'd say that's more impressive.[:D]

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I think a very important aspect of the design of any weapons system is how easily it can be produced in meaningful numbers. On that account, the Type XXI was not particularly impressive.

that´s not correct. The German were able to build Type XXI faster in 44 than Type VII in 42. The number of subs reached it´s high point in 44. U-boot production in tonnage was four times higher in 44 than in 41. It wasn´t a problem of not enough production capacity, it was more a problem of getting them into action as it took quite some time to have a sub (the crew even more so) combat ready. All in all there were only some 130 Type XXI produced IIRC but they could produce far more if they wouldn´t have thought they wouldn´t need them in 41. In 44 they planned to produce 30-40 a month and something like that was produced every month at the end of the war which is quite impressive to me as there were also other types produced. Doesn´t sound like a problem to produce them in high numbers.

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Let me make a suggestion, define "best design" in some measurable, testable way?

Takes the fun out of it. How can you put a value on sharks with laser beams on their heads? Or measure the combat value of throwing a shoe (because I mean, who throws a shoe anyway, really?).

LOL! [:D]

You know what that makes me think of, the concept of "Weapons of Mass Destruction." I don't know if it was an article I read, or one that I should be writing, but it seems to me that the concept of WMDs is _COMPLETE_ balogna.

Biological and chemical weapons, nukes, even big bombs (IIRC) do not account for most deaths in most conflicts in which they have been used, thus the concept of them being weapons of mass destruction is fundamentally flawed. But because they somehow represent an even further step away from a more 'honorable' form of killing (e.g., imagine gallant knight on horseback) they are somehow more 'repugnant.'

I seem to recall that in WWI it was artillery that accounted for a disproportionate amount of casualties . . . well that when combined with infectious disease.

WWII was it small arms fire? Certainly in modern conflicts small arms fire and perhaps small explosive devices seem to account for the largest fraction of casualties. . . . But there I go again totally tangentializing a perfectly good thread with way too much deep analytical thinking [:D]

[John Lansford]

IIRC artillery was also the biggest killer on the battlefields in WWII.  There were fewer guns than in WWI, but the accuracy and lethality of the guns was increased. 

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I think a very important aspect of the design of any weapons system is how easily it can be produced in meaningful numbers. On that account, the Type XXI was not particularly impressive.

that´s not correct. The German were able to build Type XXI faster in 44 than Type VII in 42. The number of subs reached it´s high point in 44. U-boot production in tonnage was four times higher in 44 than in 41. It wasn´t a problem of not enough production capacity, it was more a problem of getting them into action as it took quite some time to have a sub (the crew even more so) combat ready. All in all there were only some 130 Type XXI produced IIRC but they could produce far more if they wouldn´t have thought they wouldn´t need them in 41. In 44 they planned to produce 30-40 a month and something like that was produced every month at the end of the war which is quite impressive to me as there were also other types produced. Doesn´t sound like a problem to produce them in high numbers.

You know what posts like this make me dream of: a game along the lines of Civilization, in which you have sort of "God like" control of national production (or at least influence) as well perhaps as actions you can take to influence public opinion (economic policy, propaganda, etc.) but that is REALLY exquisitely based on real history and real historical 'what ifs.' And of course which accurately represented the vagaries of history . . . Not asking too much am I?

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Unless you're trying to tell me that Nazi Germany designed the Type XXI in order to facilitate post-war submarine development for its enemies, I repeat that I don't find it very impressive.

Shhh. Don't tell everybody!

[Terminus]

One last thing for tonight (got work tomorrow morning). The Germans at no time built "30 to 40 Type XXI's per month". Never.

A ship isn't finished constructing when it's launched, it's finished WHEN IT'S COMMISSIONED. Taken from u-boat.net, here are the numbers of commissioned Type XXI's, divided up by month:

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

LOL! [:D]

You know what that makes me think of, the concept of "Weapons of Mass Destruction." I don't know if it was an article I read, or one that I should be writing, but it seems to me that the concept of WMDs is _COMPLETE_ balogna.

Biological and chemical weapons, nukes, even big bombs (IIRC) do not account for most deaths in most conflicts in which they have been used, thus the concept of them being weapons of mass destruction is fundamentally flawed. But because they somehow represent an even further step away from a more 'honorable' form of killing (e.g., imagine gallant knight on horseback) they are somehow more 'repugnant.'

I seem to recall that in WWI it was artillery that accounted for a disproportionate amount of casualties . . . well that when combined with infectious disease.

WWII was it small arms fire? Certainly in modern conflicts small arms fire and perhaps small explosive devices seem to account for the largest fraction of casualties. . . . But there I go again totally tangentializing a perfectly good thread with way too much deep analytical thinking [:D]

As far as I know John is quite right. Artillery is the big killer by a wide margin. In fact artillery is called 'The King of the Battlefield', whereas the rifle is called 'The Queen of the battlefield'. Super important as the rifle is, artillery is king. With the different dynamics of what the US is involved in today air-dropped bombs might be causing most casualties among enemy (I simply don't know), but I think overall in serious conflicts it is still arty.

There's a couple/three different ways of looking at WMD. One is big effect. Nukes on a city - ouch. Hence major league avoidance. If they were used in quantity, even on 'military' targets, they would likely still make a huge difference. Artillery is king because we don't use nukes.

Another way to look at WMD is discrimination. All area weapons are indiscriminate to some degree. Nukes in a big way, gas to a lesser degree (because the area of effect is smaller) but still a lot if used in a big way. Things like bio weapons - anthrax, killer flu, etc. - are thought of differently because they can take off and spread beyond a target area and certainly beyond actual desired targets themselves.

A third way is that repugnance or revulsion factor you mentioned. Gas, bio, etc. give people the creeps partly because they feel like they are helpless against them.

Looking purely at what does the most damage or the most frequent damage is never the whole story. For example, how many people are killed every year in auto accidents around the world? A lot (depending on your point of view). How many people are killed by meteorites every year around the world? Not many, eh? I have seen various estimates of a person's chances of being killed by a meteorite during their lifetime. I just did a search to grab 'any' number, and found "1 in 700,000" chance of being killed by a meteorite during the average persons entire lifetime (as opposed to every year). Pretty low. The problem is that includes all (expected) events that might happen. A few small events where 1 or a small number die, even fewer where millions die, and a meaningful chance that EVERYBODY dies.

Kind of the same with WMD. We shouldn't fixate on them or exaggerate their importance. But if (for example) the nukes do get thrown around... [:(]

[rtrapasso]

I just did a search to grab 'any' number, and found "1 in 700,000" chance of being killed by a meteorite during the average persons entire lifetime (as opposed to every year).

Way too high an estimate... only one POSSIBLE recorded instance of someone being struck by a meteorite in recorded history... and that was non-fatal. [:D]