SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Most historically significant naval vessel...?

16097 views
149 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: San Francisco, CA
Posted by telsono on Friday, October 24, 2008 3:52 PM

stikpusher - sorry to delay in responding about your comments about the torpedoes. They didn't drop the entire torpedo, just the warhead. The height it dropped from allowed for gravitational acceleration to simulate the impact speed. Although most aircraft do not fly over Hunter's Point, but helicopters could for police or other functions. In the old John Wayne movie "Operation Pacific" they show how the warheads were tested and this film is supposedly pretty accurate in this depiction.

Proto-Submarines like the Hunley really didn't become practical except for scouting until a different means of attack was developed. The spar torpedo and similar devices had limited application as they could destroy the vessel deploying it. After the British Whitehead Torpedo and the addition of gyroscopic control did a weapon that would make the submarine more than an interesting toy.

Mike T.

 

Beware the hobby that eats.  - Ben Franklin

Do not fear mistakes. You will know failure. Continue to reach out. - Ben Franklin

The U.S. Constitution  doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. - Ben Franklin

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Thursday, October 23, 2008 9:14 PM
Well the Hunley certainly showed one path in the future of Naval Warfare, not to mention it was successful in its' mission.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, October 23, 2008 8:34 AM
I nominate the CSS "Hunley" or the "Turtle"...
  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Spartanburg, SC
Posted by subfixer on Monday, October 20, 2008 5:45 AM
No, he left the US Navy a year before the commissioning of USS Nautilus. He didn't even finish nuclear power school but did serve on diesel boats (USS Pomfret). He was training to be the engineer on the Seawolf when he resigned his commission in 1953.

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, October 19, 2008 10:01 PM
 mattdavis wrote:
I am not sure whether it was the Nautilus that was the first nuclear powered submarine,but, whichever one it was I think at least deserves some consideration in light of the changes it created in the tactical situation at the time and since.
Didn't Jimmy Carter CO the first US Nuclear sub???
  • Member since
    October 2008
Posted by mattdavis on Sunday, October 19, 2008 8:58 PM
I am not sure whether it was the Nautilus that was the first nuclear powered submarine,but, whichever one it was I think at least deserves some consideration in light of the changes it created in the tactical situation at the time and since.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: 41 Degrees 52.4 minutes North; 72 Degrees 7.3 minutes West
Posted by bbrowniii on Sunday, October 19, 2008 8:52 PM

 Mansteins revenge wrote:
Surfboard?

Oh, I get it!!!  Woohoo... took me a minute, but I finally figured it out.  Good one Manny! Bow [bow]Laugh [(-D]

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing' - Edmund Burke (1770 ??)

 

  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Spartanburg, SC
Posted by subfixer on Saturday, October 18, 2008 5:15 PM
Yeah Ray, they have been mentioed earlier in the thread, they're good choices, especially the Monitor.

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Lyons Colorado, USA
Posted by Ray Marotta on Saturday, October 18, 2008 3:50 PM

How about the Monitor and the CSS Virginia (Merrimack)?

Ray

 ]

 

 

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Exeter, MO
Posted by kustommodeler1 on Saturday, October 18, 2008 1:37 PM
oops....did I kill this thread with my reply?Confused [%-)]

Darrin

Setting new standards for painfully slow buildsDead

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Exeter, MO
Posted by kustommodeler1 on Thursday, October 16, 2008 8:35 PM

American naval: I vote CV-6 Enterprise #1, BB-38 Pennsylvania #2, and CA-35 Indianapolis #3.

 

Japanese naval: I.J.N. Akagi.

 

German naval: D.K.M. Bismarck.

 

British naval: H.M.S. Hood #1, H.M.S. Ark Royal #2

 

But thats just me.Cool [8D]

Darrin

Setting new standards for painfully slow buildsDead

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, October 16, 2008 8:05 PM
Surfboard?
  • Member since
    April 2005
Posted by ddp59 on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 6:38 PM
edit the title to reflect the question as american not world.
  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 3:39 PM
Perhaps the title is throwing them off? Just the omission of the single word "American" misleads the latecomers to this thread.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 3:15 PM

Original Question:

Which naval vessel in American history, in your opinion, is the most significant from a historical perspective? Which one, but most importantly, why?

...Mayflower? Constitution? Monitor? Maine? Langley? Arizona? Enterprise? Missouri? Nautilus? ....so many to choose from...  

  • Member since
    April 2004
Posted by Chuck Fan on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 1:43 PM
 jwintjes wrote:

The first trireme built - according to Thucydides - by Ameinocles for the Samians.

Because it was the first purpose-built warship.

Ever.

Jorit 

 

UNwarranted reliance on textural evidence.    Big Smile [:D]

 

  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Spartanburg, SC
Posted by subfixer on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 12:08 PM
Hey, Manny, maybe you should fix the title of this thread to read "American" or change your opening question. The folks are misreading your intent.

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

  • Member since
    March 2006
Posted by jwintjes on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 11:49 AM

The first trireme built - according to Thucydides - by Ameinocles for the Samians.

Because it was the first purpose-built warship.

Ever.

Jorit 

  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Spartanburg, SC
Posted by subfixer on Monday, October 13, 2008 6:08 PM

 Sky Cop wrote:
How about the (1855) USS Niagara. It helped lay the first transatlantic telegraph line. The first step in instant worldwide communication.

 

Good one.

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

  • Member since
    October 2008
Posted by Sky Cop on Monday, October 13, 2008 6:04 PM
How about the (1855) USS Niagara. It helped lay the first transatlantic telegraph line. The first step in instant worldwide communication.
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, October 13, 2008 4:31 PM
 Chuck Fan wrote:

Come on,  We are talking about the MOST significant naval vessel in HISTORY.    That's all recorded human history, guys, something that spanned 30 times more years than USA, and encompassing the rise and fall of all civilization great and small, including many that were, or still are, far larger, longer lasting, and more profoundly and fundamentally influential even to the people of the present day than USA, and we are talking about some landing craft and some ship that might have taken part in pearl harbour in just the last 68 years?

 


 

Okay, throw one out there...I sorta nominated the LCI tongue-in-cheek to get this thread going again anyway...although I suppose it is a valid nomination at least...
  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Spartanburg, SC
Posted by subfixer on Monday, October 13, 2008 4:30 PM

Well, my first nomination, J.P. Jones' Ranger, on page one of this topic fell by the wayside. How do we know what the correct one is? Do we keep naming them off until someone says "YOU GOT IT"? Are we getting warm?

I think the subject is going along OK, we are getting a lot of different opinions and new outlooks on the subject.

And, if you go back to page one, we will find that the original question was "American history", not the history of mankind.

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

  • Member since
    April 2004
Posted by Chuck Fan on Monday, October 13, 2008 4:17 PM

Come on,  We are talking about the MOST significant naval vessel in HISTORY.    That's all recorded human history, guys, something that spanned 30 times more years than USA, and encompassing the rise and fall of all civilization great and small, including many that were, or still are, far larger, longer lasting, and more profoundly and fundamentally influential even to the people of the present day than USA, and we are talking about some landing craft and some ship that might have taken part in pearl harbour in just the last 68 years?

 


 

  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Spartanburg, SC
Posted by subfixer on Monday, October 13, 2008 3:55 PM

I nominate the LCVP. 

President Eisenhower was talking to Stephen Ambrose (of Band of Brothers fame) about Ambrose's home town of New Orleans and asked Ambrose if he knew Andrew Higgins. Ambrose replied that did not and asked Ike why he asked. Eisenhower replied that Andrew Higgins pretty much made D-Day possible and that he might be considered responsible for winning WWII because of his LCVP design and for getting over 20,000 of them built.

Here is a quote from ye olde Wikipedia:

No less an authority than the Supreme Allied Commander declared the Higgins boat to be crucial to the Allied victory on the European Western Front and the previous fighting in North Africa and Italy:

"Andrew Higgins ... is the man who won the war for us. ... If Higgins had not designed and built those LCVPs, we never could have landed over an open beach. The whole strategy of the war would have been different." - General Dwight Eisenhower

Image:LCVP-plan.gif

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, October 13, 2008 2:50 PM
I nominate the LCI (landing craft, infantry)...
  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Friday, October 10, 2008 7:42 PM
How high did they have to raise the torpedos off the ground to get a simulated impact speed? I would think between gravity and the weight of the torpedo it would not have been overly high. Not enough to present a hazard to aircraft. Very interesting...

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: San Francisco, CA
Posted by telsono on Friday, October 10, 2008 5:51 PM

On a side note about the faulty torpedoes, The gantry that was used to test the torpedoes in San Francisco still stands at Hunter's Point. I see it daily just north of Candlestick Point. The extension they used to get greatly height to simulate the impact is painted red and white so not to be a danger to aviation.

Mike T.

Beware the hobby that eats.  - Ben Franklin

Do not fear mistakes. You will know failure. Continue to reach out. - Ben Franklin

The U.S. Constitution  doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. - Ben Franklin

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Thursday, October 9, 2008 7:42 PM

Getting back to nautical themes, I would nominate the Gato CLASS as very historically significant in US naval history. More than any other class/type of vessel, they were responsible for more Japanese shipping tonnage sunk than all others, including the carriers. Once the problems with faulty torpedoes had been solved, they had a massive effect upon the Pacific War.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, October 8, 2008 11:06 PM
 telsono wrote:

searat12 - you should books from both sides of the situation. MacDonald has more than adequate credentials to speak of the subject as an historian for the US Army's history branch and the book has been praised by other historians like Carl d'Este about completeness on the subject. The work is fair to both sides and covers the battle by dividing it into the three axis of attack the Germans intended. Just going by the actions you mention gives on a partial partisan vies of that momentous battle. Read about the defense of St. Vith (studied by the US Armor school), the actions of the 82nd Airborne on the northern shoulder, the 2nd Armoured Division, the lack of German penetration at the southern shoulder, etc.

Also, MacDonald was there! He led an infantry company at the defense of the twin villages of Krinkelt-Rocherath which was told in his first book "Company Commader". The German armor took a great deal of damage in that fight before the GI's retreated.

Not reading MacDonald's book is like viewing the Guadalcanal Campaign only from the aviation aspect. Frank's book gives a good overview of that entire campaign.

But we should get back to nautical subject that this thread is about.

Mike T.

The 6th SS Panzer Army was really pitiful in its performance in the Bulge...the middle group, 5th Panzer Army actually made terrific advances and almost made the Meuse...the Army covering the Southern flank did well considering it was composed of primarily 2nd rate infantry units...regardless, at this strage of the war the German Army simply did not have enough reinforcements, fuel or logistical support to consolidate or hold the gains it made...The 6th Army was so lackluster that most of the panzer units there were disengaged and sent to help beseige Bastogne...

Hitler always maintained that his elite SS divisions never performed as well n the Western front as they did on the Eastern front...I tend to agree, even taking the into account the overwhelming air-superiority on the Western front...the only exception, IMO, would be the 12th SS Panzer Division's performance in holding Caen against the commonwealth forces...the absence of much in the way of mention of the 1st and 2nd SS PD's presence in historical accounts of the Normandy campaign is very conspicious...

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.