What is your Favorite type of ship?

You left out the liberty ships in the survey....I kind of like one that brought my dad home.....such as the Marine Perch. It also had a second and then a third life as I study it. As it was a "troop carrier", wouldn't that qualify as a warship?

 

Actually the original battlecruiser concept was a ship with near the gunpower of a battleship, the speed of a cruiser and armored against cruiser gunfire. One of the design criteria for battleships was that it be armored to provide an immune zone against it's own main battery. So if you look at it from this perspective there can be a very good case made that the Alaska Class were battlecruisers. As for the Scharnhorst, it was armored along the lines of a battleship so the best description for her would be a small, underarmed, fast battleship.

 

The Battlecruiser concept came from the pre-WWI era. There were two schools of thought the British who held that a BC needed to have the speed of a cruiser with the firepower of a BB, at the expence of armor. They paid a heavy price at Jutland for this choice as well as Hood vs Bismark. The German aproach in WWI was a more balanced design that for a time could hold their own against BB's, as they did at Jutland. The Scharnhorst and her sister was lineal decendants of WWI German Battlecruiser design. The USN went to great lengths to call the Alaska's anything but a Battlecruiser, but for all intents and purposes they were classic BC's. They could sink anything smaller than a BB, but always ran from a BB if they could (or if they had any sence). They other reason for BC's, to scout ahead of the fleet, had been superceeded by radio and air reccon by WWII. There really was no place for BC's in WWII, except as commerce raiders and they were not cost effective in the role compared to aircraft/submarines.

 

I'm a fan of battleships, because I love the idea of huge seagoing fortresses of extravagance. I love to think about all that armour and firepower and complexity.

That said, today I came across this interesting essay: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

At first I was annoyed by the cheap shots at industrialism and male anatomy, and thought this was just another politically correct rant by someone who knew nothing about the subject.

But reading more I realised that this guy had actually done some research, and knew a bit of history. I thought the author made a good point about phalanx warfare versus manoeuvre warfare. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says - and some of it, frankly, offends me - but overall I found this a thought-provoking and worthwhile read.

 

Yeah mate...i can see where your annoyance is derived...He tripped himself up right at the start...couldn't go much further, sorry.

 

I don't blame you. I was just masochistic enough to read all the way through. Plus there were pictures.

But it was the comparison of phalanx warfare versus mobile warfare that actually interested me. The PC crap was ignored.

 

Well let's see there were what 3 sentences in the first paragraph.
1) He claims that BB's were the fastest things on the sea. Nope.
2) He claims that they were made of foot thick armor. Not really, while some may have had armor this thick or thicker they certainly weren't bade of it.
3) He states that some of the treaty battleships would tip over if they fired a full broadside. Wrong again.

That's three significant errors in the first short paragraph!!! are you sure he's done some reasearch?

 

Darn, I guess I'm an idiot.

 

Scott Locklin also does not know that penis is not a second declension noun (masculine), thus the plural is not "penni" but penes, third declension (neuter). Also what kind of half-educated jackanape sees Freudian phallic symbolism in naval architecture? Somebody with issues, I'll wager.

Reading further in that article I learned that Locklin knows nothing about the writings of Victor David Hanson beyond the Publishers Weekly blurb on the various Hanson Amazon pages.

"Lockin on Science" indeed. He'd do science a favor by blogging on alchemy

 

Way, way toooooo much information!

 

I've always had a thing for aircraft carriers, such as the Enterprise and the Yorktown

 

Two very good choices.

 

Depending on which Yorktown that is....

 

Aaagh...your first steps to wisdom Sentinel....

 

I'd say either one. I assumed he was talking about the CV5 Yorktown because he mentioned the Enterprise also (a Yorktown class CV). But if he was talking the CV10 Yorktown (an Essex class CV) that would be a good choice also. The Essex's were essentially an improved Yorktown class, and IMO the Essexs were the best CV class in WWII.



"Murderers Row" six Essex class CV's at Ulithi Atoll. The Yorktown is the second one from the foreground. Power. Beauty.

 

The reason I questioned which Yorktown was the best is because CV-5 went down at Midway in addition to taking a beating in the Coral Sea. Tough stretch for the bluejackets on that boat.

 

I would have to stick with the USS Missouri (BB-63) or the USS South Dakota (BB-57), two of the most well know US BattleShips of WWII and two of my most favourites

 

I chose BB's, but the choices really didn't fit for me. I love specific ships: USS Yorktown, USS Washington, USS California, USS Bogue, USS Guadalcanal, USS Tabberer, USS England, USS Wahoo, USS Heermann, USS Montgomery.... and many more.

 

No doubt Bobby, they were definately in the thick of things. Not to change the subject but, since it's located in your neck of the woods, have you visited the USS Kidd?

 

Yes, several times. Did some volunteer restoration and maintenance work there too awhile back. Nice boat. It's floating free from it's cradle now.