Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Top Ten Warships of All Time- Miltary Channel
buzzard    5/30/2006 10:54:25 AM
OK, yesterday I caught part of this show on the Military Channel. It had, IMO a rather odd set of picks for the top ships in history. I really don't quite get how they made their evaluations. 1 Iowa Class battleships 2 Nimitz Carriers 3 Aegis Cruisers 4 Queen Elizabeth Battleships 5 Fletcher Destroyers 6 North Caroina Class 7 Essex Class carriers 8 Bismark 9 Graf Spee 10 Hood (!?!) Now I'm not sure of the order (precisely, though I know 1-4 are correct), and maybe they limited things to the 20th century (which seems like the only way this list could be excusable). I have to ask, what the hell were they thinking? The Hood did not even vaguely deserve to be on the list other than due to noteriety. The Bismark and Graf Spee were pretty much meaningless in effect. Why are there no submarines even on the list? So, given this rather strange list we are presented with, what would your choices be. For the sake of argument, let's limit things to 20th century. Since I chose this forum choice, why don't we stick to surface ships at that. buzzard
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT
Yimmy    RE:Top Ten Warships of All Time- Miltary Channel   5/30/2006 11:45:19 AM
That list is crap. However it does rather depends on how you define the question of "Top Ten Warships of All Time". Obviously their list only accounts for the 20th Century, which is a bit odd in the first place given their title. Also, I think they have somewhat cheated by giving classes of ships rather than individual examples. But I am not surprised at the lack of submarines, their being boats and not ships. Personally, I would answer the "Top ten warships of all time", with individual examples, based on fame and historical noteriety. I would certainly keep HMS Hood on the list, her success mostly being in Diplomacy and as a figure head who met an unfortunate end, while I would certainly remove the Nimitz class (perhaps adding USS Enterprise), Aegis Cruisers (historical my arse, and what have they actually done that is historically notable?)... In fact I would rewrite the entire list. For the 20th Century 1. HMS Hood 2. USS Phoenix 3. IJN Yamoto 4. Bismark 5. Peter the Great (Kirov Class) 6. HMS Queen Elizabeth or HMS Royal Oak 7. HMS Ark Royal (the WWII one) 8. HMS Vanguard 9. USS Missouri or USS Iowa (which one was the Jap surrender signed on?) 10. USS Enterprise or USS Longbeach Off the top of my head.
 
Quote    Reply

buzzard    RE:Top Ten Warships of All Time- Miltary Channel   5/30/2006 1:26:09 PM
Your list: "1. HMS Hood 2. USS Phoenix 3. IJN Yamoto 4. Bismark 5. Peter the Great (Kirov Class) 6. HMS Queen Elizabeth or HMS Royal Oak 7. HMS Ark Royal (the WWII one) 8. HMS Vanguard 9. USS Missouri or USS Iowa (which one was the Jap surrender signed on?) 10. USS Enterprise or USS Longbeach" I don't think I get the gist of it. I see something of a thread of historical relevancy, but even there I see ones which don't fit. I mean the Yamato for example. Sure it was the biggest battleship ever made, but it really never amounted to anything. I'd probably look up the names of the carriers used for Pearl Harbor and include those since in one fell swoop they caused a huge change in the future of naval warfare. You could make a care for the Bismark since it did sink the Hood for a bit of note, but beyond that it didn't accomplish anything. The Hood, well sure you can make a case that it was good for waving the flag, but it was an ineffectual warship that didn't survive it's only hostile encounter. That's hardly a badge of honor worthy of 1st place. In truth given the performance of the British navy in WW II, I'd probably not give them so many slots. They were creamed by the Japanese and otherwise face off against non maritime powers. The Pacific war was carried by the U.S. with Commonwealth assistance. The show was trying to make a care for warship classes in terms of efficacy. Thus my questioning of the Hood. In fact, I'd probably question any of the WW II British battleships as they were all undergunned and underarmored for their day (yes I know the Hood wasn't a battleship). While I agree with an assessment discarding Aegis cruisers in terms of historical significance, they are certainly capable warships. They have also launched their share of ordinance in anger (Gulf War I). Also the Nimitz class has certainly provided enough damage on target and downed enough enemy planes to have some note. You could also make a clear case for the relative dominance to other ships of their era of the Nimitz and Aegis. I suppose one ought to clarify what the list is really setting out to be. I'd favor efficacy in context. An alternative would be historical significance. buzzard
 
Quote    Reply

EW3    RE:Top Ten Warships of All Time- Miltary Channel   5/30/2006 1:35:01 PM
getting my popcorn ready ;)
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Top Ten Warships of All Time- Miltary Channel   5/30/2006 1:50:54 PM
"getting my popcorn ready ;)" Nah, I for one on that note am getting my coat and leaving this thread. :) It's either that, or try to fathom how 8 x 15 inch, 9 x 16 inch, or 10 x 14 inch is somehow undergunned. Likewise the underarmoured generalisation is a tad confusing on looking at the layout on Nelson, Rodney, KGV, POW, and even the rebuilt Royal Oak etc.
 
Quote    Reply

buzzard    RE:Top Ten Warships of All Time- Miltary Channel   5/30/2006 2:10:57 PM
My bad, I was uninformed about the later British battleships of the war. I know that going in the best they had were 14 inch guns owing to cost considerations. Not to excuse my ignorance, but wasn't upgunning battleships during WW II rather like closing the barn door once the horse was gone? By that point everyone had a pretty good picture that Carriers were the dominant naval arm. I probably wouldn't list any battleship as greatly significant during WW II. So ignore my ignorance on that. I'd still like to see any rational case for the Hood being a #1 warship by any practical measure. buzzard
 
Quote    Reply

eldnah    RE:Top Ten Warships of All Time- Miltary Channel   5/30/2006 3:09:09 PM
Replacing the Nimitz's with the Kirov's, even on a fanciful list of top, not unique, warships is a bit odd.
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    Okay...My List   5/30/2006 3:16:42 PM
Some of these may or may not be considered warships but.... 1. Essex Class Carrier Redefined capital ship 2. SSBNs (US/USSR/UK/FR) Redefined capital ship again 3. Type VII Uboat Almost knocked the UK out of the war Tied 4. CVEs & DEs/Flower Class corvettes Took care of #3 6. HMS Dreadnought 7. APAs & AKAs Made reconquest of Pacific and Europe possible 8. Yakuza class (I think?) DDs redefined fleet destroyer ops 9. Nuclear attack submarines. Threatened to do what #3 did....plus can enter into strike ops 10. CVNs 4 acres of sovereign territory anywhere in the world.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Okay... I'll bite   5/30/2006 3:59:26 PM
Firstly, I should have had HMS Dreadnaught in my list, I don't know how I missed that one, but then my list was just off the top of my head and does have flaws. "I know that going in the best they had were 14 inch guns owing to cost considerations" Hmmm, that is not correct. The standard armament of a British Battleship based on WWI principles was 8 x 15 inch guns, such as on the Queen Elizabeth and Royal Oak classes, and also on the Hood, although Repulse and Renown (also Battlecruisers) had 6 x 15 inch guns rather than 8. What with the inter-war arms race and the resulting Washington(?) Treaty of naval restrictions, the two most noteworthy new classes of Batleships to join the Royal Navy inter-war were the KGV class, which had 10 X 14 inch guns, and Rodney and Nelson, which although slow were well armoured and had 9 x 16 inch guns. The British 14 inch gun was a superior weapon to the British 15 inch gun, the turrets of which dated from WWI. "Replacing the Nimitz's with the Kirov's, even on a fanciful list of top, not unique, warships is a bit odd." The Nimitz class are just the super carrier of the day, although I am sure a couple of the class have interesting histories I am not well read on them. I had HMS Enterprise instead, as being the first nuclear carrier she had a far larger impact on the 20th Century. I added the Kirov for her being unique in being the only Battlecruiser of her time.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Okay... I'll bite   5/30/2006 4:02:01 PM
Gah, USS Enterprise sorry. And I mentioned the KGV Class and Nelson as the two most noteworthy British interwar Battleships, when as best I remember they were the only new classes. :D
 
Quote    Reply

JIMF    RE:Okay... I'll bite-Yimmy   5/30/2006 4:24:31 PM
the follow on class to the KGVs were 4 ships of the Lion (Lion, Temeraire, Thunderer and Conquerer) class. They were to have had 16" guns, 3 triple turrets I think, but they were cancelled because it was felt they would not be available until the war was over. I understand that the 8 15" guns used for the single Vanguard were already available which speeded her construction.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics