And those same Bipe's sank a battleship and mortally damaged two others the year before at Taranto. And chased the Regia out of the Med....

Taffey 3 is a great call BTW. They got a Presidential Unit Citation, and for a bunch of converted freighter hulls...

Hehehe. It 's good to poke some fun. What fascinating history! Thanks for the input. :c)

The USS Johnston was more than just a great war ship. More like a great legend! It did a good joob with its five inch guns. It really went beyond call of duty against the opposition. We got to support the underdogs. Greatness doesn't come to capitol ships and aircraft carriers alone. We salute Cdr, Evans and his brave crew.

Ordie, your post about the USS Johnston speaks volumes. She was a Fletcher Class destroyer, and as such, one of scores built ,and until that October day, nothing special among them. But that day, average sailors aboard an average destroyer went above and beyond the call of duty (along with all the other escorts) lashing out at a far superior Japanese force, and eventually forced them to retire. Including the mighty Yamato in her only surface action, turned back by a spread of torpedoes from USS Heerman, a sister ship of USS Johnston. That action truly speaks to the fact that it is the crew, from the commander to the youngest/newest sailor, that makes a great warship great.

Yeah, Stik - if the thought of Lt. Cdr. Evans, fighting his badly damaged ship from aft-steering with one hand (while actually steering the ship with that hand), giving the Johnston's last and all trying to keep a swarming enemy off the Gambier Bay doesn't choke you up, nothing's going to.  One of the last things heard on the Johnston's sound-powered phones was a gunner's mate on the last functioning five-inch gun calling for, "More shells!  More shells!"  They fought her top to bottom that day, they surely did.

IJN Yamato, nuff said!

Best regards, Ninetalis.

The Yamato was taken out of her only surface fight by a Fletcher Class destroyer, USS Heerman.... 'nuff said.... ;-)

LOL? Yamato sunk by 'only' one destroyer?

She was taken out after beeing attacked by nearly 400 aircraft, also, I remember a guy posting somewhere that his dad worked on a Gato-class(?) sub, shooting torpedos at the Yamato several times and hitting it.

The Yamato has never had a surface fight, and if it did and it would of used its main guns it would had taken the SH** out of the enemy, instead, it was sunk by aircraft because it had no air cover, EVERY (battle)ship would have been sunk, remember Force Z?

Also "Spruance ordered Admiral Deyo to assemble a force of 6 battleships (USS Massachusetts, Indiana, New Jersey, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Missouri), together with 7 cruisers (including USS Alaska and Guam) and 21 destroyers, and to prepare for surface action against Yamato should the airstrikes prove unsuccessful." 

And if the Yamato-class doesn't impress you, maybe this will. 

Still, you could go on and on about how this ship came to late, since it was the dawn of the aircraft carrier and all that BUT it still is the biggest, heaviest, most armored battleship build with the biggest armament ever mounted on a battleship...

Also, I forgot to mention, the I-400 sub is magnificent to! 

With regards, Ninetalis.

Ninetails, read up about the Battle off Samar during the Battle of Leyte Gulf in the Phillipines, October 1944. It is very well documented from both sides. Yamato was the flagship of the Japanese surface task force that went thru San Bernadino strait. This massively powerful surface force fell upon "Taffy 3", a group of  US Escort Carriers and their escorting Destroyers and Destroyer Escorts. Hardly an even fight by any measure. But the US forces put up a fight that is the suff of legend. It was a brawl that ranged from long range gunnery to short range point plank shots by almost all combatants. Look at Ordies post above about USS Johnston, one of the bold USN Destroyers in that fight. And the mighty Yamato, was indeed "taken out" of the fight (not sunk) by being forced to run away from a torpedo spread fired at  her by USS Heerman, a Fletcher Class destroyer. By the time that the torpedoes ran out of "juice" and Yamato could turn around and move to rejoin the battle, the battle had moved too far awar for Yamato to take part. The Japanese did not have fire control radar and their gunfire direction was visual. In the weather conditions of that place and time, she was out of the battle. Before the torpedo spread which forced her retirement, her 18" gunfire was not overly effective or impressive. Yamato showed rather poorly in this fight, her only surface battle, which is what she was designed for.  The Japanese Cruiser force was far more lethal during this battle, the last great suface fight in sea warfare. The old US Battleships that fought the night before at Surigao Straight were fought better, by their Captains and crews. And most of those had been at Pearl Harbor. Yes, Yamato was sunk six months later by an overwhelming aerial onslaught on the open sea with no air cover, just as Prince of Wales and Repulse were 4 years earlier. But in her sole surface action, she performed worse than many other battleships.

Have a look at the Battle of Leyte Gulf Nine, and I promise that you will find some great naval history.

The torpedo bombers put the final nails in its coffin. Yes the design of this battle ship is beyond amazing! Incredible set of cannons! I must find a 1/700 to build. Its a trophy in anyone's boat collection. I love the I-400 sub! How many u-boats were fitted with air crafts. Perfectly designed to launch surprise attacks on convoys. I understand that the master plan behind these u-boats was to send as many as possible to the western cities of the states and launch a massive aerial attack. 18 of this was meant to be put in production in 1942, but only 5 were made in 1943, with only three completed for service.

IIRC, the theory for the I-400 boats was to attack the Panama canal, not West Coast US cities. 18 boats x 3 aircaft each, would not been much of a massive attack. More like a light carrier's strike, and float planes vs shore based fighters (the Panama Canal and US Coastal cities had fighter squadrons nearby), would have been rather one sided. I think it is another case of something looking very good on paper to someone in charge, not being so practical in reality.

If you want to see something that was highly effective, look at Japanese Heavy Cruisers. In 1942 they ruled the South Pacific in almost all surface actions.

Hi Stik.

You're absolutely bang on. They were used for a strike on the Panama Canal. Thanks for the input. I stand corrected and much wiser.

Never heard of it Stik, but I'll look into it.

About the I-400,
To be honest, there were some plans that the I-400 would attack US West Coast cities with biological weapons, but some smart guys in the japanese high command were able to cool the others down and get rid of the plan and after that they decided to attack the Panama Canal.

Bissyboat, try 'Japans Secret weapon' from National Geographic, they cover this subject quite good actually.

With regards, Ninetalis. 

Thank you for that hot tip Ninetails! I will certainly look into that. The I-400 really tickles my brain. I got my self a mission now.

Regards Bissyboat

Old Ordie

Breaking off that attack to rush to the defense of the CVL USS Gambier Bay, the Johnston drove off another heavy cruiser.  She then fought off

stikpusher

If you want to see something that was highly effective, look at Japanese Heavy Cruisers. In 1942 they ruled the South Pacific in almost all surface actions.

In 1942 the US Cruisers got their butts handed to them most of the time by the Japanese. It was a steep learning curve and much of the New Orleans class paid the price that year. Even a successful cruiser like USS San Francisco took a beating...

Ninetalis

LOL? Yamato sunk by 'only' one destroyer?

She was taken out after beeing attacked by nearly 400 aircraft, also, I remember a guy posting somewhere that his dad worked on a Gato-class(?) sub, shooting torpedos at the Yamato several times and hitting it.

The Yamato has never had a surface fight, and if it did and it would of used its main guns it would had taken the SH** out of the enemy, instead, it was sunk by aircraft because it had no air cover, EVERY (battle)ship would have been sunk, remember Force Z?

Also "Spruance ordered Admiral Deyo to assemble a force of 6 battleships (USS Massachusetts, Indiana, New Jersey, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Missouri), together with 7 cruisers (including USS Alaska and Guam) and 21 destroyers, and to prepare for surface action against Yamato should the airstrikes prove unsuccessful." 

And if the Yamato-class doesn't impress you, maybe this will. 

Still, you could go on and on about how this ship came to late, since it was the dawn of the aircraft carrier and all that BUT it still is the biggest, heaviest, most armored battleship build with the biggest armament ever mounted on a battleship...

GMorrison

Old Ordie

Breaking off that attack to rush to the defense of the CVL USS Gambier Bay, the Johnston drove off another heavy cruiser.  She then fought off

Gambier Bay was actually a Casablanca class CVE, as were the other carriers.

You are absolutely correct, sir.  In my day, the little ones (which were much larger than Gambier Bay) were not designated that way, one of the dangers of working from memory a good deal when I write - cross bleeding time periods (aka, just plain befuddlement, LOL!)  CVEs were even punier than CVLs (run, Yamato, run ).

An interesting thing, though, about US Navy designations, especially in aviation, is that they change frequently (carrier and squadron designations).  An example would be, when I was embarked on the Kitty Hawk, she was CVA-63.  When she was decommisioned, many years later (nearly forty, in fact), she was designated CV-63, and had been for some time.  Which should I use when writing about her?

Bissyboat, great thread!  Lots of fun so far.    

In Bissyboat's OP he said, "Rank them according to size, tonnage, firepower and merits."  I supposed leadership, pugnacity, esprit and so on to be among  the 'merits', and I guess my posts thus far have indicated how important I think 'merits' are.  As for the other criteria, here's how I'd rank them:  Size?  Obviously, today's big carriers.  I would list the largest five of those. Tonnage?  See my answer for size.  Firepower?  Whichever five boomers that carry the most warheads.  That leaves merits by which to include, exclude and differentiate ... 'nuff said.

The ship is just an empty floating collection of wood or metals, until it has a commander and crew. And then she becomes something more that succeeds or fails in her roles.

Thanks Ordie!

I have enjoyed this thread immensely myself. Really appreciate all the input as well as the enthusiasm you all bring to the table. Really good stuff!

SS Mont-Blanc + SS Imo - put them together & they darn near blew Halifax NS off the map...

Old Ordie

 

An interesting thing, though, about US Navy designations, especially in aviation, is that they change frequently (carrier and squadron designations).  An example would be, when I was embarked on the Kitty Hawk, she was CVA-63.  When she was decommisioned, many years later (nearly forty, in fact), she was designated CV-63, and had been for some time.  Which should I use when writing about her?

Thats better than the name I heard for her from a freind of mine who served on the Vinson...

Well, I assume you're looking for a specific vessel but still I'm surprised no one mentioned the Trireme used by various Greek leaders like Athenian Admiral Themistocles to stop the Persians from several invasions of Greece. If Darius had succeeded Western Civilization would have been based on the Persian idea rather than the Greek.   

Also the Kobukson or Turtle Ship associated with Korean Admiral Yi who in the 16 century stopped several attempts by the Japanese to invade Korea and by extension China. The Turtle Ship was one of the first if not the first armored ironclad warship. 

I'm not an expert on classic ships. But you make a valid point here. These ships represent a huge milestone in ship designs and tactics. No doubt these ancestors have shaped our perception and innovation of the modern war ships we have today.

Another ship that deserves som credit, is the fireship (or known as the hellburner). through centuries it was known as a ship loaded with explosives that would come charging completely unmanned towards a fleet of enemy vessels like a ghostship. On contact the explosive charges would blow up, and spread wild fire to the nabouring ships. This would hurl many people into panic and create total chaos and forcing their ships to break formation. In the late middleages they started this by using greek fire. It was most efficient and could easily demoralise the attackers. The english used this method against the Spanish armada at the Battle of the Gravelines.

Yeah, I've been reading about the Royal Navy. Amazing how resilient sailing ships were. The wood was somewhat elastic and could absorb the blow from a cannonball without taking too much damage. The greatest weakness was as you said- fire. Once it started it was almost impossible to put out. I can understand how terrifying fire-ships were.

USS Nautilus (SSN-571) as the first nuclear powered submarine must be included in this list. The forerunner of the ultimately most powerful type of warship ever known- the fleet ballistic missile nuclear submarine. There, I've said it! Nothing else can compare to the SSBN in its successful peacekeeping (to date) or its apocolyptic potential.

stikpusher

Thats better than the name I heard for her from a freind of mine who served on the Vinson...

LOL!  My guess is that the first word in the phrase starts with an S, and the second word is Kitty.  We called her that ourselves ... sometimes.

subfixer - No doubt about it, the boomer is the most powerful warship ever, talking raw power.

Manny - ... then everyone would think I was talking about a place in North Carolina ...