Biggest Loser...

The Navigator

The CSS Virginia. It was designed to blast through and break the Union blockade. With the exception of it's debut, it accomplished nothing and led to more ships that did just as little. the money and materials used could have been used to improve the railroad system and buy more blockade runners. 

Can’t agree, Navigator. The CSS Virginia was a wonderful example of necessity being the mother of invention. Out of near desperation, the Confederates tried to build an ironclad blockade-breaker on the cheap. Yes, she was underpowered, over-draft, and, bluntly, a pig to steer — her turning radius was at least a mile! But all in all, 8 March 1862 wasn’t a bad day for the Confederate navy.

The Virginia sure scared the [dinkywongo] out of old Abe’s war cabinet! Spies had reported that the rebels had raised the sunken USS Merrimack. The Union was afraid that, after clearing house at Hampton Roads, she’d come up the Potomac and bombard the Capitol. (Ah! The wonders of sheer, blind panic — I’d’ve loved to have seen her trying to maneuver past the river bend at Fort Washington — that just wasn’t going to happen!) But remember, the South didn’t have to win — they only had to avoid losing.

As to “money and materials”, the Virginia’s casemate was only four inches of iron (on top of two feet of oak and pine). That was what? Possibly the weight of a locomotive? Just how much do you think that was going to “improve the railroad system”?

stikpusher

 

 

I read a very good book on this subject a couple years ago, Red Star Rogue. The author makes a very convincing arguement on that path. One key piece of evidence he discussed was the fact that CIA admitted to recovering the ship's bell, which would be located in an area of the wreckage not admitted to being recovered by CIA. The book actually makes some very frightening suppositions about the Golf's last patrol and reason for loss, but I will not delve in to that here.

In regards to the Glomar Explorer, I don't know if I'd classify her as one of the biggest losers.

I don't think we'll ever know the true results of her stated mission but of all the ships named, shes the only ship still afloat - not bad for a 'loser' if you ask me.

The Glomar Explorer is now the GSF Explorer a 'Dynamic Positioning Drillship' operating for TransOcean Ltd.

Explorer operated in the Gulf of Mexico since 1998 until the Deepwater Drilling Moratorium forced the ship to move to Indoneasia.  Shes now contracted to Marathon drilling in Southeast Asia.

So, altho not not succesful (??) in her designted mission, shes done pretty well since.

Adrian

Tom-

The money and materials I referred to was for all the ironclads, not just the Virginia. Yes she was quite an achievement however, the design's full potential was never realized. She and her sisters were to destroy the Union's wooden fleet, thus breaking the blockade, and bring direct support from France and Britain.

The work done on the Merrimack to turn her into the Virginia was remarkable. I put her name in here to advance the conversation beyond the usual suspects.

Mike

Mike, you’re cheating, substituting “all the ironclads” for “the Virginia”. The original question was: what capital ship in the history of naval warfare was the biggest disapointment in what it was supposed to have achieved vs what it actually did?

Not class of ships, SHIP, singular.

If John Ericsson hadn’t pulled out a miracle (a government contract on time and under budget!), it is quite possible that Catesby ap Roger Jones might’ve broken the back of the Yankee blockade on 9 March 1862. It is equally possible that Silas Stringham might’ve decided that USS Minnesota was lost and her best use was as a fireship in an attempt to take out the Virginia. Endless possibilities.

It's obvious that you know way more about the subject at hand. I threw her name out there to be different and to get a good debate going. If for nothing else, that succeeded.  

I had an unfair advantage! My Father was a buff. My brother-in-law is a reenactor (like all reenactors, he’s crazy). My oldest nephew got his PhD in Civil War naval history (I suspect he could’ve rattled off what I had to look up). There’s more Civil War crap (I mentioned Fort Washington) around here than …

Now if I can go back to Biggest Losers, the Hunley killed twenty-six combatants (twenty-one of her own three crews, two officers and three men in Housatonic).

Stikpusher-

I too, read that book. That's where you have to be careful is that there have now been a handful of books written about the K129-Scorpion conspiracy theory, and any submariner will tell you that a lot of the "facts" in those books are bologna. Do I think some of the stuff in them might be true? Sure. But take what they say with a little common sense. And whatever you do, don't read Scorpion Down, that one is the worst when it comes to complete BS.

As for the Hunley, I think it had growing pains. It did succesfully accomplish its mission, which had never been done before. Any technological innovation is going to have a few glitches and probably kill people in its development. I think that the fact that the Confederates kept the project alive through so many losses showed that they understood that. And based on the latest theories I heard from the people restoring the Hunley, it did not sink in the explosion, but more likely the crew sat the sub on the bottom for a few minutes to hide afterwords, and then simply ran out of oxygen.

I agree Sub. Thats why I did not delve into that part of the book here. Everything about the final mission itself inside the sub is pure supposition on the part of the author. There is no way anyone alive can confirm or deny the goings on insdie. But one fact that does speak about the recovery is the physical evidence of the ships bell. ' We only recovered the bow,  the rest of the wreck broke off, but we also got the ships bell'. CIA unlike our news media, is gonna be very tight lipped about an intelligence recovery operation. OPSEC and all that good stuff.

I agree about the Hunley as well. It did accomplish it's primary mission of sinking an enemy warship, and as you said current research shows it did escape... just did not survive to fight another day after it's escape. More than a few subs have had that fate.

A better candidate than the Hunley would be the five Japanese Midget Subs employed at Pearl Harbor, although the resources put into those was not that great. They did come pretty close to blowing the excellent OPSEC that the Japanese employed on that attack. Had the Ward's warning of its' encounter with the first Midget Sub been properly acted upon potentially Oahu could have been in a better defensive condition at the beginning of the attack.

Have you read Blind Man's Bluff Subfixer?

TomZ2

Now if I can go back to Biggest Losers, the Hunley killed twenty-six combatants (twenty-one of her own three crews, two officers and three men in Housatonic).

As far as killing crews, she did succeed in sinking an enemy warship. Yamato and so many others can't make that claim.

Has it ever been determined how she sunk? Too close to the blast, thus buckling her plates?

As far as the Confederate ironclads, they were indeed a failure to a point. The first generation or so (Virginia, Atlanta, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee I, were all built as huge vessels that were supposed to be ocean-going ships that were to break the blockade. None of them were fit to do so. They could barely stem the tide. They were heavy and under-powered, and unmaneuverable.

The next generations (Albemarle , Charleston, Virginia II, Chicora, Palmetto State and so on) were built for coastal defense in mind and were much smaller and better protected. They of course never lifted the blockade, but prevented the much superior Union fleet, especially at Charleston, from capturing the cities until late 1864 to early 1865. So they were successful to a point when used in a defensive manner.

tigerman

Has it ever been determined how she sunk? Too close to the blast, thus buckling her plates?

Yes and no. We know someone was able to send the “success” blue lantern signal an hour after the blast. Clive Cussler (who PAID for locating Hunley) thought she was swamped by the wake of Canandaigua (I’m simplifying just a little), see The Sea Hunters, 1996.

I was a member of the Hunley foundation for a while, so I got all their reasearch updates. The latest I heard, which they had pretty convincing evidence for, was that it survived the blast and on its way back, the crew felt like they were being searched for, and so sat the sub on the bottom to wait it out, until they ran out of oxygen. As he said above, the blue light "success" signal was one of the clues they had, even before they found the Hunley. But one of the biggest curiosities they found when they raised the sub was that the crew members bodies were all still there, and they looked perfectly calm, like they had simply fallen asleep. No sign of panic or disorder, like you might expect from a sub that was sinking. If you would like to know more, look up the Friends of the Hunley (I think that's what it's called, been a few years.) And if you are ever in Charleston, take the time to go see it. It is very impressive and humbling.

Interesting subrevolution. Wasn't there a miniseries or something about the Hunley with Armand Assanti? Was it accurate?

That I don't know. I know TNT or somebody did a couple Civil War movie/series at some point, but I never saw them.

tigerman

Interesting subrevolution. Wasn't there a miniseries or something about the Hunley with Armand Assanti? Was it accurate?

 

This? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0162897/

I don't know anything about it, haven't seen it (that I recall) I just looked to see if there were any references to it.

There was a TV movie in 1999 on TNT (120 min. including copious commercials, but it certainly FELT like it ran longer). Donald Sutherland as General Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard (one character portraying another!). No comment about any purported ‘accuracy’.

I'm not getting into anymore debates regarding Civil War ships! I felt like I was on the Cumberland- outgunned, outmatched, nowhere to go but in the deep!

Therefore I will nominate one of the Virginia  class battleships, the U.S.S Rhode Island. It was learned from the Kearsarge & Kentucky that the double turret design didn't work, but they did it again. Luckily, the class never saw combat so they avoided being higher on the list.

Phil_H

 

tigerman:

 

Interesting subrevolution. Wasn't there a miniseries or something about the Hunley with Armand Assanti? Was it accurate?

 

 

 

This? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0162897/

I don't know anything about it, haven't seen it (that I recall) I just looked to see if there were any references to it.

That was the one! I only saw snippets of it, so I can't recall the story.

All in all, I think we’ve pretty much put this puppy to bed. The original question was: what capital ship in the history of naval warfare was the biggest disappointment in what it was supposed to have achieved vs what it actually did?

I can see three ways to bend the original question: going for type (e.g., The Navigator’s generic “all the ironclads”), encompassing civilian craft (e.g., RMS Titanic, SS Sultana), or teasing fact from fantasy, the “paper” ship (e.g., mobile moles, hydrofoil aircraft carriers). What’s your pleasure?

Before we brush the puppy's teeth, we should look at the usual suspects from a different angle. The Yamatos, Bismarcks, and other "losers" were failures due to command decisions and strategy, rather than design. If handled differently, they could have been winners. Now get to sleep!

Mike

The Navigator

The Yamatos, Bismarcks, and other "losers" were failures due to command decisions and strategy, rather than design. If handled differently, they could have been winners.

Maybe, but was there really a Battleship winner in WW2?  I suggest that there wasn't because flat-tops had replaced them as rulers of the sea and they had to skulk and be husbaned in the backwaters, lest they be sunk bu aeroplanes...

Manstein's revenge

The Navigator:

The Yamatos, Bismarcks, and other "losers" were failures due to command decisions and strategy, rather than design. If handled differently, they could have been winners.

Maybe, but was there really a Battleship winner in WW2?  I suggest that there wasn't because flat-tops had replaced them as rulers of the sea and they had to skulk and be husbanded in the backwaters, lest they be sunk by aeroplanes...

The USS Missouri, BB-63, was the world’s last and some say most famous battleship. Iowa-class battlewagons like her outlasted all others. By that criteria, I’d have to say WINNER!

And as to loser-by-design, the Hood shows the advantage of having a badass rep. I have never understood why the Brits invested such prestige in her yet never found the time to correct a known flaw. Hmmm, maybe that qualifies as a command decision failure as much as a design failure, both of the second kind.

Not to cross threads here, but couldn't the U.S. Navy's "Big 5" battleships be considered winners. Damaged at Pearl Harbor, they were repaired, updated, and used successfully in a different role. Compared to their contemporaries, they performed admirably and saved many lives.

Mike