Top Ten fighting ships of all time

[crsutton]

Nuff said...

[Lecivius]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

...4. For this spot I would pick one not mentioned yet. The Monitor and her sisters, both single- and double-turreted. Instrumental in the blockade of the South, they were the single biggest reason European aid did not come to the CSA and allowed the Union to dissect the CSA from both the inside and outside. If the US Civil War had gone another way the whole course of European history in the 20th C. would have been different.
...

No. The biggest single reason European aid did not come to the CSA was slavery. That was a far bigger and broader reason than the Union navy.

I think you underestimate Britain's appetite for cotton at the time. They were perfectly willing to trade with the South before the war.

The USS Monitor said to the wooden Royal Navy "Bring it on."

I'm at work, so I can't back up my statements. But as I recall the Royal Navy was ready, able, and willing to not only "bring it on" but teach them upstarts in The Colonies a lesson. They had several very, very serious iron clads of their own, and theirs were ocean going ships.

As for the Iowa's, one of the biggest reasons for the upgrades and for bringing them back into service was the Falklands conflict. The exocet was a damned rude surprise to western navies, who found their smaller, and expensive high tech destroyers & frigates wanting in defending themselves from a long range sea skimming anti ship weapon. The BB's were brought back as a stop gap until better defense systems like the CWIS systems were fully brought online with all the bugs worked out.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

The US Navy was one aspect, but politcally Britain couldn't bring herself to intervene.

The diplomatic history was complex. No single factor ruled. But it can be said that the CSA grossly miscalculated British dependence on its cotton. The CSA unilaterlally cut exports to try to force GB to intervene; GB refused and instead exploded cotton production in Egypt and India. The CSA argued that the Union blockade was a "paper" blockade and thus unenforcable under international law where a blockade must be credible to be lawful. The Monitor showed that was a false claim; the blockade was credible. As GB had used blockades extensively in its imperieal history it had a great interest in blockade law being strictly enforced. Before the Monitor the Union navy was weak and the blockade arguably was not sufficient for international recognition. After, and as monitors were cranked out in vast numbers, that claim was baseless.

GB also traded with the Union through the war, even though some Union states allowed slavery (four I think.) It could get cotton elsewhere, but it needed Union grain and it wanted Union consumption of highly-value-added goods such as foundry equipment and railroad materials.

From the Union perspective it played some hardball with GB too. The Trent affair wasn't helpful. Union delegations pointed out that the war was an internal matter and that didn't GB have populations in Scotland and Ireland--both nations with huge numbers of immigrants in the US--which were ripe for revolt and might like a little "help" from across the sea?

But bottom line it was eocnomics. GB gained far more by being on good terms with the US than with the CSA. The CSA blundered badly by restricting cotton instead of virtualy giving it away to GB at the beginning of the war. Speeches in GB talked a lot about slavery, but those in power didn't act that way. The Monitor, and then the Emancipation Proc., cut the ground out from under the CSA's arguments. But for the year and a half before the EP the British were happily trading with slaveholding Union states.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel



No. The biggest single reason European aid did not come to the CSA was slavery. That was a far bigger and broader reason than the Union navy.

I think you underestimate Britain's appetite for cotton at the time. They were perfectly willing to trade with the South before the war.

The USS Monitor said to the wooden Royal Navy "Bring it on."

I'm at work, so I can't back up my statements. But as I recall the Royal Navy was ready, able, and willing to not only "bring it on" but teach them upstarts in The Colonies a lesson. They had several very, very serious iron clads of their own, and theirs were ocean going ships.

They had two. They were wooden armored conversions, had wooden masts as well as steam, and were good ships that the Monitor could have sunk without danger to itself. And the Union navy shortly had many, many monitors.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The British had so thoroughly logged Britain by the time the colonies in North America were established one of the attractions of the New World was a new source of trees for ships of the Royal Navy.

I have heard that during colonial times a squirrel could go from New England to the Mississippi River without ever touching the ground. That's how heavily wooded the Eastern US was. A lot of those trees were just chopped down and burned to make room for farming, but they went to a lot of other uses too.

Bill

Since we're venturing off the topic of warships and looking at forestry on this continent, I'll add on the two bits of forested area (and some 'colonial-era animals) too.

Since 1900, much of the Western US has reforested. As firefighting techniques have improved and timber harvest of wild forests has decreased, this build has resulted in a massive carbon sink. Other countries (notably Canada, China and Germany) have also been reforesting sizeable portions of their landmass over the past 50 years or so. Japan is amongst the most heavily forested (with old growth forests) countries in the world. The Eastern US-in particular New England-has been reforesting significantly more recently. For those environmentalists that preach doom and gloom about the way we treat the environment, I find this to be heartening news.

You guys (many of you) around in the 1970s-remember acid rain and what it did to the forests and lakes of the NE? No longer. I think that's progress.

Many wildlife animal species, such as the bison, grey wolves, turkeys, bald eagles, osprey, white-tailed deer (and the list goes on) are doing better today than they did in the year 1900.

Early colonial farm practices and decentralized agricultural practices were particularly rapacious consumers of forested land. Much of it marginal in use with that existing technology. Think it's accidental that our per acre corn harvest has more than quadrupled since the end of WWII? Technology, American farm renovations, vertically integrated farm systems, genetics and biological science have led to this food production revolution.

Farmers and scientists saved our forests and our wildlife. Full stop.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Some posters with a lot more historic knowledge than the "Military Channel" (Iowa class? Seriously?) beat me to the punch overnight, but I'll give my list.
HMS Dreadnought.

At first I thought you meant that the correct name for the class was not "Iowa". I scanned a page of my Battleships and Battle Cruisers 1905 to 1970 by Siegfried Breyer and was about to scan my Conway's (how's that for name dropping?) when I realized you were dissing the idea that battleships made much of a difference in WWII. I see you included Dreadnought, but of course she was the most powerful capital ship of her time, and there were no aircraft carriers or nuclear subs pre WWI. So in the words of Rosanna Rosannadanna "Never Mind." [8|]

On the other hand, the lowly U-Boats of WWI did far more damage than all the world's battleships in WWI. So there. [:-]

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The British had so thoroughly logged Britain by the time the colonies in North America were established one of the attractions of the New World was a new source of trees for ships of the Royal Navy.

I have heard that during colonial times a squirrel could go from New England to the Mississippi River without ever touching the ground. That's how heavily wooded the Eastern US was. A lot of those trees were just chopped down and burned to make room for farming, but they went to a lot of other uses too.

Bill

Since we're venturing off the topic of warships and looking at forestry on this continent, I'll add on the two bits of forested area (and some 'colonial-era animals) too.

Since 1900, much of the Western US has reforested. As firefighting techniques have improved and timber harvest of wild forests has decreased, this build has resulted in a massive carbon sink. Other countries (notably Canada, China and Germany) have also been reforesting sizeable portions of their landmass over the past 50 years or so. Japan is amongst the most heavily forested (with old growth forests) countries in the world. The Eastern US-in particular New England-has been reforesting significantly more recently. For those environmentalists that preach doom and gloom about the way we treat the environment, I find this to be heartening news.

You guys (many of you) around in the 1970s-remember acid rain and what it did to the forests and lakes of the NE? No longer. I think that's progress.

Many wildlife animal species, such as the bison, grey wolves, turkeys, bald eagles, osprey, white-tailed deer (and the list goes on) are doing better today than they did in the year 1900.

Early colonial farm practices and decentralized agricultural practices were particularly rapacious consumers of forested land. Much of it marginal in use with that existing technology. Think it's accidental that our per acre corn harvest has more than quadrupled since the end of WWII? Technology, American farm renovations, vertically integrated farm systems, genetics and biological science have led to this food production revolution.

Farmers and scientists saved our forests and our wildlife. Full stop.

We still need Brazil to do the same or we're still screwed. New Guinea, Borneo and Sumatra too.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58



I think you underestimate Britain's appetite for cotton at the time. They were perfectly willing to trade with the South before the war.

The USS Monitor said to the wooden Royal Navy "Bring it on."

I'm at work, so I can't back up my statements. But as I recall the Royal Navy was ready, able, and willing to not only "bring it on" but teach them upstarts in The Colonies a lesson. They had several very, very serious iron clads of their own, and theirs were ocean going ships.

They had two. They were wooden armored conversions, had wooden masts as well as steam, and were good ships that the Monitor could have sunk without danger to itself. And the Union navy shortly had many, many monitors.

Correct. The French had the first seagoing iron clad La Gloire launched in 1859.

Also incorrect (in a sense). The British launched the iron hulled Warrior (not iron-clad) in 1860. It may be a matter of debate but I expect iron clad oak was harder to penetrate than a plain iron hull.

It should be noted that France was all in favor of helping the CSA but would not do it without the Brits. To Bullwinkle's point, there were many in Britain who favored the CSA, but for most it was too incongruous since the British Fleet was imposing a ban worldwide and especially across the Atlantic of the slave trade.

One more edit. According to Shelby Foote, the textile workers in Britain overwhelmingly supported the Union and were vehemently against slavery.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The British had so thoroughly logged Britain by the time the colonies in North America were established one of the attractions of the New World was a new source of trees for ships of the Royal Navy.

I have heard that during colonial times a squirrel could go from New England to the Mississippi River without ever touching the ground. That's how heavily wooded the Eastern US was. A lot of those trees were just chopped down and burned to make room for farming, but they went to a lot of other uses too.

Bill

Since we're venturing off the topic of warships and looking at forestry on this continent, I'll add on the two bits of forested area (and some 'colonial-era animals) too.

Since 1900, much of the Western US has reforested. As firefighting techniques have improved and timber harvest of wild forests has decreased, this build has resulted in a massive carbon sink. Other countries (notably Canada, China and Germany) have also been reforesting sizeable portions of their landmass over the past 50 years or so. Japan is amongst the most heavily forested (with old growth forests) countries in the world. The Eastern US-in particular New England-has been reforesting significantly more recently. For those environmentalists that preach doom and gloom about the way we treat the environment, I find this to be heartening news.

You guys (many of you) around in the 1970s-remember acid rain and what it did to the forests and lakes of the NE? No longer. I think that's progress.

Many wildlife animal species, such as the bison, grey wolves, turkeys, bald eagles, osprey, white-tailed deer (and the list goes on) are doing better today than they did in the year 1900.

Early colonial farm practices and decentralized agricultural practices were particularly rapacious consumers of forested land. Much of it marginal in use with that existing technology. Think it's accidental that our per acre corn harvest has more than quadrupled since the end of WWII? Technology, American farm renovations, vertically integrated farm systems, genetics and biological science have led to this food production revolution.

Farmers and scientists saved our forests and our wildlife. Full stop.

We still need Brazil to do the same or we're still screwed. New Guinea, Borneo and Sumatra too.

Yes. It would be nice. But the environmental policy (or lack thereof) of the Brazilians, Indonesians and Malaysians is largely beyond our purview.

For now, I'll settle on recognizing progress and giving credit where credit is due. Something we don't do enough of in general, IMO.

[Lecivius]

Going over the armament of the british Iron clads, I have to admit I don't believe they would have stood up to a Monitor class, especially once they upgraded to 15" Dahlgrens. The Royal Navy, however, were pretty proud of those ships.

Anywho, enough OT for me.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: CV60

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: CV60

I think it comes down to how you define the criteria for "Fighting Ship." I think many of your proposals, while excellent, would fall under a list of "most influential" ship designs, i.e., ship designs having the greatest historical impact. Using the definition I proposed, I'm not sure the 74 gun Ship of the Line would apply-While certainly an effective platform, I don't believe it had the service life of the larger HMS VICTORY (although I could be wrong). I agree the GATO and follow on classes would merit consideration for inclusion, although I'm not sure how combat effective they were after about 1955-62. Using my criteria for fighting ship (combat effectiveness over length of service), I'm not sure about the HMS DREADNOUGHT class. While revolutionary, as a class it was rapidly superceded, so that the HMS DREADNOUGHT was relegated to second-line status by the time WWI began, only eight-ten years into its service life, and wassold for scrap after only 15 years.

I agree the definition is key. The Military Channel itself violated it by naming a class and not a ship.

But to me the ability of a ship or a ship class to blast away and sink a bunch of other ships is immaterial. Navies exist to affect events ashore. Nothing else. Those I named did that. The 74-gunner imposed a blockade on Nappy's empire which forced him into continental moves he might not have taken if, say, India were a possibility for him. In that sense the class was highly influential over HMS Visotry, which was a fine ship, still is, but didn't change world history by herself.

I also do not see longevity as mattering a bit. If the trireme had been rendered obsolete the day after Salamis it still would have done its job at changing the course of world events. Ditto Dreadnought. It made the world's navies obsolete. (Monitor the same.) If you didn't have a counter for Dreadnought you were not a maritime empire, or soon wouldn't be one.

This brings up one of the issues with the "revolutionary" vs. "effective" arguments over weapon systems. Frequently, a "revolutionary" weapon system is not effective by the time it actually enters combat because, by sparking a revolution, it itself becomes outmoded by evolutionary follow on developments to the revolution it started. The HMS DREADNAUGHT would be one example. It itself was revolutionary. But the HMS DREADNOUGHT itself was rapidly outclassed by the follow on ships of the revolution it started. The USS IOWA was possibly the apex in terms of combat effectiveness of the revolution begun by the HMS DREADNOUGHT. But without the revolution started by the HMS DREADNOUGHT, there would be no USS IOWA.

Exactly. USS Nautilus never fired a shot in anger, but boy was she revolutionary.

Threads like this always start a lot of discussion. There aren't any objectively correct answers. There are some objectively incorrect ones though. [:)]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Correct. The French had the first seagoing iron clad La Gloire launched in 1859.

Also incorrect (in a sense). The British launched the iron hulled Warrior (not iron-clad) in 1860. It may be a matter of debate but I expect iron clad oak was harder to penetrate than a plain iron hull.

It should be noted that France was all in favor of helping the CSA but would not do it without the Brits. To Bullwinkle's point, there were many in Britain who favored the CSA, but for most it was too incongruous since the British Fleet was imposing a ban worldwide and especially across the Atlantic of the slave trade.

One more edit. According to Shelby Foote, the textile workers in Britain overwhelmingly supported the Union and were vehemently against slavery.

Warrior had a hull of iron, overlaid by teak, overlaid by iron armor. In contrast, the casemate of CSA Virginia was oak and pine overlaid by iron armor. There were significant shock and splinter injuries to the crew during the battle with the USS Monitor.

My noting that I think Monitor could have dealt with Warrior was less about the hull of the latter and more about the vulnerability of the masts, rigging, and sails, plus the decks, to fire. She could operate on steam alone, but she was not fully armored above the waterline as Monitor was.

Old Shelby does say that. Unfortunately (or fortunately as your views may be) the textile workers didn't own any capital. And they were just fine using "wog" produced cotton in their mills, as if the peoples of Egypt and India growing it had fine lives. Oh, and don't let those same "wogs" have any looms. Value-added cloth? An economic boon too far. What's a merchantile system worth if you can't exploit the colonies?

[geofflambert]

Allways has to have the last word Bullwinkle. [:@]

[geofflambert]

.



Sorry, nothing rhymes with bullwinkle

[Amoral]

Like 5 mentions of the essex class? Have you people no concept of history?

The austronesian outrigger canoe was the dominate miltary vessel throughout about 1/4 of the world for close to 35,000 years. They are responsible for the complete erradication of as many as 2,000 ethnic groups and the conquest of indonesia and the pacific ocean.

[geofflambert]

Do you pronounce that aw or ay? Does your mother know you're online? Finish your homework.

[Lecivius]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Sorry, nothing rhymes with bullwinkle

Someone give that space happy lizard a mouse. He has WAY to much free time on his hands[:'(]

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Sorry, nothing rhymes with bullwinkle

Someone give that space happy lizard a mouse. He has WAY to much free time on his hands[:'(]

A mouse? Yummm! That would be a reward, not a punishment.

My opponent should give me a turn. Either that, or I should go back to studying the Japanese economy. But I have to stop everytime my brain starts hurting. After about five minutes.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: CV60

I'm a sucker for lists like this, so I'll give a shot at creating my own list ... 3) Queen Elizabeth BB-In service from Jutland to end of WWII. Effective in 2 World Wars ...

I recall that we have the Warspite in AE, but it can barely hold it's own against IJN CA's.

Oddly enough, I don't recall that any IJN ship made the Top Ten list, but coincidently, the QE Class also made the #3 slot.

Yeah, a bit odd...

I don't feel I know enough about historical ship designs to build a list of my own, but WW2 classes that have always impressed me:

IJN CAs, particularly Mogami and Takao classes
Brooklyn CLs
US WW2 fleet subs (Gato class, Balao class, etc.)
Fletcher DDs.

For the rest -
The Norse longship capable of reaching North America (and before that, Britain) was very...efficient, and its use has had a profound impact on Western culture.

The (Greek) trireme is also impressive.

"Age of Exploration"/sailing ships-of-the-line are neat, but I don't know enough about their history to comment beyond that.

[geofflambert]

Someone needs to mention (so I will) the Chinese expeditionary fleets of the 15th century which explored all of the Indian Ocean, much if not all of the Pacific, some think the Southern Ocean and perhaps even the South Atlantic. One of these fleets had 28,000 sailors in it (there may have been larger ones). The largest class of ships used were as follows:

"Chinese treasure ships" (±¦´¬, B¨£o Chu¨¢n), used by the commander of the fleet and his deputies (nine-masted, about 127 metres (416 ft) long and 52 metres (170 ft) wide), according to later writers[citation needed]. This is more or less the size and shape of a football field.[71][72]

All the fleets of Europe combined were pathetic in comparison.

The emperor following all this activity had all the ships and maps derived from these expeditions burned.