Top Ten Fighting Ships

The Alreigh-Burke should be in the list, along with the Nimitz, though I do see that the media morons did include it on second.
As for the first iron-clad ship in the world, it's the little known "Turtle Ship" in the Joseon dynasty, most famously used as the admiral Yi-Soon-Sin for his fllet. It was made around 1592. Of course, it wasn't fully iron-clad, rather the top was iron-clad. However, when you look in the dictionary, iron-clad means that partially covered in iron. Although I think the turtle ship was the first iron-clad ship in the world, there may be other ancient iron-clad ships that I am unaware of. If so, please inform me, as I like new information
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
George

USS Michigan had no history, other than the first to be built. Its abit like the Me-262 fighter. The 262 was not the first jet fighter, the first jet fighter to fly was the Heinkel 178, but the 262 gets the credit as the first as she was the first to see combat.

The CSA Virginia was the first to see combat and the first two destroy an enemy ship. On her very first sortie, in a single day she destroys Frigates USS Congress and USS Cumberland, forever changing naval Warfare. Therefore, CSS Virginia deserves the credit even though she wasnt the first ironclad to be built.

As for the battle-cruiser, you are right, but that signals a serious flaw in her design. How the Royal Navy could have thought that the BC class would never face ships in her weight-class boggles the mind. Historically she was almost never used in her intended role, all of the BC adversaries where either enemy BC or BBs and they did extremely poorly against them.
Click to expand...
I suppose it would matter how the Title is defined. Best fighting Ship = to Best warship vs best ship in a fight. virginia was top dog for a day, untill its equal showed up. There was a number of Navys that built Monitors, but I think only the CSN built the casemate ironclads, but don't know for sure. I believe the "Llaird Rams", built for the Confederates are a better choice for father of the 1900-1905 Pre-Dreadnought. The CSS Stonewall had a normal ship hull(vs Monitors), a gun turret & guns in broadside. A couple were taken into R.N. service a others were sold overseas. I'm still convinced the Chilean(Ex-Peruvian) Huascar is one of them
 
They rank these ships according to a series of factors: service length, innovation, "fear factor", etc, not just how powerful they are.
 
Another revolutionary ship was the IJN Nagato, the first battleship with 16" guns, and the most powerful in the world when she was commissioned. She survived many battles in WWII and was finally sunk by an atomic bomb.

The Russian Ekaterina II carried six 12"/30 guns at a time when the next most powerful battleship had four (1889), the last two of the four ship class had 12"/35 guns they served for 30 years.
 
Last edited:
Korean Seaboy said:
The Alreigh-Burke should be in the list, along with the Nimitz, though I do see that the media morons did include it on second.
As for the first iron-clad ship in the world, it's the little known "Turtle Ship" in the Joseon dynasty, most famously used as the admiral Yi-Soon-Sin for his fllet. It was made around 1592. Of course, it wasn't fully iron-clad, rather the top was iron-clad. However, when you look in the dictionary, iron-clad means that partially covered in iron. Although I think the turtle ship was the first iron-clad ship in the world, there may be other ancient iron-clad ships that I am unaware of. If so, please inform me, as I like new information
Click to expand...

I have heard references to "bronze clad" galleys used by the ancients, to protect against flaming arrows. Similarly iron bars were laid on the decks of early warships as protection from plunging projectiles launched by catapults. The bronze plating definitely predates the Turtle Ships, and the iron clad decks may also. But I agree the Turtle ships were among the first purpose built ironclads, though they lacked the steam power normally associated with the term ironclad. For fear factor they must have been something, in those days a dragon head belching fire and smoke - protruding from a seagoing, stickle backed iron carapace probably would have been pretty upsetting to an enemy sailor
 
Last edited:
USSWISCONSIN said:
I have heard references to "bronze clad" galleys used by the ancients, to protect against flaming arrows. Similarly iron bars were laid on the decks of early warships as protection from plunging projectiles launched by catapults. The bronze plating definitely predates the Turtle Ships, and the iron clad decks may also. But I agree the Turtle ships were among the first purpose built ironclads, though they lacked the steam power normally associated with the term ironclad. For fear factor they must have been something, in those days a dragon head belching fire and smoke - protruding from a seagoing, stickle backed iron carapace probably would have been pretty upsetting to an enemy sailor
Click to expand...


You got that right. According to stories, the Turtle ship had its head either:
1)Fire cannonballs forward
2)Spread smoke, sometimes poisonous (as all its crewmen were confined in the enclosed deck)

It was a legendary ship in Korea, yet little known ship outside Korea(unfortunately). It was among one of the first ironclad ship (Have to do more research on that, USSWINSCONSIN). It was virtually indestructible at that time, due to the protection the iron gave to the crew (the iron was a roof-kind of protection). It had numerous cannons for a ship at that time, and the spiked iron gave protection to the crew from both enemy fire and enemy boardings (a popular tactic by the Japanese at that time).
Given the time that the turtleship were used (about the later half of the 1400s), the technology was very advanced and far into the future...:)


Back to the topic:
I found one ship that should be considered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Sejong_the_Great_class_destroyer
The King Sejong the Great class destroyer is armed with the Aegis combat system, and it is very similar to the Arleigh Burke class (which is already a very powerful class), but improved vastly. It can have an additional load for 2 helicopters, and have a capacity of 128 missiles, instead of the Arleigh Burke's 96.
Sounds good?
 
Last edited:
c/Commander said:
No, it could shoot a salvo at one. After that, it's pretty much screwed, as the carrier can outrun it (or survive even a few hits), call in the battle group, launch aircraft, and bye bye submarine.
Click to expand...

Actually, after 4 or more torpedo 62 up her arse it wouldn´t outrun much of anything..I´ll give you that the Sub would get sunk if the escorts could find it but that doesn´t mean the carrier is the endall of modern warfare..
The worst possible outcome would be bye bye submarine if it slipped through the net as oft times during exercises.

But the carriers are great assets against well...Iraq and Afghanistan as floating bases for the zoomies.


Monitor needs to be on that list.
Before it´s time and able to change the course of an entire seawar on it´s own.

KJ sends..
 
mmarsh said:
....Its abit like the Me-262 fighter. The 262 was not the first jet fighter, the first jet fighter to fly was the Heinkel 178, but the 262 gets the credit as the first as she was the first to see combat....
Click to expand...


Actually, the Heinkel 178 wasn't constructed or intended as a fighter, nor did it ever serve that purpose.
The first dedivcated jet fighter that took to air was the Heinkel 280, a rather sound design leaning heavily on the experiences done with the He-178, but still of a totally different design.
Maybe ironic that the He-280 had many of the design features that the Me-262 came up with in the production series long after the He-280 was turned down.

As for the topic, I'm with KJ here, the Gotland class sub would be a serious threath to any of the mentioned top-ten fighting ships.

And though the USS Monitor had a rather short service, it has still earned it's place on the list in my opinion.
 
KJ said:
Actually, after 4 or more torpedo 62 up her arse it wouldn´t outrun much of anything..I´ll give you that the Sub would get sunk if the escorts could find it but that doesn´t mean the carrier is the endall of modern warfare...
Click to expand...

Sorry for the long delay, but I've been otherwise occupied for the last 3 months. Point being that the second anyone saw or heard an inbound torpedo, the carrier is going all ahead flank, everyones Nixies are in the water, and there is one very dead submarine very close by.

I hate carriers. I think they're a pain to station with, a pain to guard, and a pain to be in a port with...but one thing they are not is slow and defenseless.
 
mmarsh said:
This list is pretty bad

1. HMS Hood -sunk by a single 12" shell that pentrated her paper-thin armor like a hot knife through butter and blew the ship apart. In fact most historians consider the Battlecrusier idea to be a bad seeing how many of them were sunk in WWI.

2. Deutscheland Battleship. Another failed design, completely incapable of defending herself against armed opponents (too slow and too weak armor)
As for the others, well they arn't bad choices but there are other ships that deserve to be on the list more. For example

HMS Dreadnaught
HMS Victory
IJN Yamato (superior to USS Iowa)
USS Constitution
USS Monitor/CSA Virginia
Click to expand...
Comment on the Battleship Yamato being superior to Iowa Class Battleship is false because the Yamato did not have Radar the Iowa did .Even though the Yamato had longer Range the Uss Iowa could walk her guns in on the 18" and the Yamato was blind until she could see the Target.The same problem with the IJN Carriers at the Battle of Midway their Carriers didn't have Radar.
 
Last edited:
On the HMS Hood comment, forgot to mention that Bismarck had 15" guns, not 12" as the Post said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top