# Most Influential Ship?



## renrich (Nov 30, 2007)

I hope this subject has not been discussed before but what individual ship in WW2 in all the combatant's navies had the most influential and illustrious war record. This would include all ships of all navies active in the war and although they were called boats, it would include submarines. Please understand I am talking about an individual unit such as USS Tang or U525 or HMS Warspite. I would do this in a poll but don't know how to set it up. I have my candidate picked and will post it later. Have at it.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 30, 2007)

The Essex class carriers.

Not a single war loss (although two were severely damaged and knocked out of the war).


----------



## comiso90 (Nov 30, 2007)

IMO The most influential ship that influenced WW2 aviation was the Ostfriesland, the Captured German WW1 ship that was sunk by Billy Mitchell. That acted really ushered in the age of naval aviation as a serious offensive force.

_What was the name of the Japanese destroyer that McClusky's Dive Bombers followed to find the Japanese fleet? That destroyer probably tipped the balance in one of the greatest Naval Battles ever!_

.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Nov 30, 2007)

The aircraft carrier. And specifically, as syscom3 stated, the Essex Class.

TO


----------



## Glider (Nov 30, 2007)

HMS Illustrious. 
Her attack on Toranto had a major influence on Pearl Harbour. Indeed had the attack not taken place Japan may well have delayed the attack and who knows what would have happened.
Her participation in the battles of the Med went a long way to securing Malta and she played her part in the Pacific.
In design her armoured deck became standard on all carriers after the war. 
Not bad.


----------



## comiso90 (Nov 30, 2007)

renrich said:


> Please understand I am talking about an individual unit such as USS Tang or U525 or HMS Warspite. I would do this in a poll but don't know how to set it up. I have my candidate picked and will post it later. Have at it.



He's talking about a specific ship!


----------



## ToughOmbre (Nov 30, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> He's talking about a specific ship!



Ooops   

OK, how about three (3) specific ships, Enterprise, Hornet, Yorktown. They turned the tide of the Pacific War at Midway.

TO


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 30, 2007)

For Canada it has to be the HMCS Haida a Tribal Class destroyer its battle honours 
ARCTIC 1943 - 1945 
ENGLISH CHANNEL 1944 
NORMANDY 1944 
BISCAY 1944 
KOREA 1952 - 1954
Ships sunk 


April 26, 1944 T29 Torpedo Boat 
April 29, 1944 T27 Torpedo Boat 
June 9, 1944 ZH1 Destroyer 
June 9, 1944 Z32 Destroyer 
June 24, 1944 U971 U-Boat 
July 15, 1944 UJ1420/UJ1421 Trawler 
August 6, 1944 M486 Minesweeper 
August 6, 1944 SG-3C 
September 6, 1944 VEDETTE Patrol 

Plus just for you Reinrich the crew were honourary citizen's of Texas for their work rescuing the crew of a 29 in 49


----------



## comiso90 (Nov 30, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> For Canada it has to be the HMCS Haida a Tribal Class destroyer its battle honours
> ARCTIC 1943 - 1945
> ENGLISH CHANNEL 1944
> NORMANDY 1944
> ...



Any planes destroyed?


----------



## renrich (Nov 30, 2007)

Please, as mentioned by comis, a specific ship. Not a class of ships. Like Glider who picked HMS Illustrious.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 30, 2007)

USS Essex, followed by the USS Enterprize.


----------



## renrich (Nov 30, 2007)

She was laid down on 16 July, 1934. Because of replacement of reduction gearing and over 1200 boiler tubes she was not completed until 18 July, 1938. She was said to have cost $25M. She displaced 19,900 tons. She was 761 feet on the water line and 83.25 feet on the beam. She drew a little over 21 feet and she exceeded 34 knots on trials. Her weapons were 81-85 aircraft but she also mounted(in the beginning) 8-5 inch 38s, 16- 1.1s and 16 smaller MGs. She had a patch of armor at the water line over machinery and boiler spaces and had a heavy protective deck. She had 3 lifts and could catapult AC from her hangar deck. She was 200 miles south of Pearl Harbor, having been delayed because of bad weather after delivering planes to Wake, on December 7, 1941. The commander of her little force that day was Bill Halsey and her weapons that day were TBDs, SBDs and F4Fs. Later she would carry F6Fs, TBFs, SB2Cs, F4Us and F4U2s(night fighters) She was in the Marshall Island raids, the Doolittle raid on Japan, Midway, Guadalcanal landings, Eastern Solomons(damaged) Santa Cruz(damaged) Battle of Guadalcanal, Gilbert Islands, Kwajalein, Truk Raid, Iwo, Okinawa(took a kamikaze) and many Pacific raids 1942-45. Her air group, along with the Yorktown's did the majority of the damage at Midway. Without her the victory in the Pacific would undoubtedly have been longer in coming. She was the USS Enterprise. There is no telling the amount of tonnage of Japanese shipping her AC put on the bottom or the number of Japanese AC she was responsible for downing. She earned her keep and then some. The Big E will go down in history as the fightinist ship in US Navy history.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Nov 30, 2007)

I'm going with the grand old USS Missori BB-63.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Nov 30, 2007)

renrich said:


> She was laid down on 16 July, 1934. Because of replacement of reduction gearing and over 1200 boiler tubes she was not completed until 18 July, 1938. She was said to have cost $25M. She displaced 19,900 tons. She was 761 feet on the water line and 83.25 feet on the beam. She drew a little over 21 feet and she exceeded 34 knots on trials. Her weapons were 81-85 aircraft but she also mounted(in the beginning) 8-5 inch 38s, 16- 1.1s and 16 smaller MGs. She had a patch of armor at the water line over machinery and boiler spaces and had a heavy protective deck. She had 3 lifts and could catapult AC from her hangar deck. She was 200 miles south of Pearl Harbor, having been delayed because of bad weather after delivering planes to Wake, on December 7, 1941. The commander of her little force that day was Bill Halsey and her weapons that day were TBDs, SBDs and F4Fs. Later she would carry F6Fs, TBFs, SB2Cs, F4Us and F4U2s(night fighters) She was in the Marshall Island raids, the Doolittle raid on Japan, Midway, Guadalcanal landings, Eastern Solomons(damaged) Santa Cruz(damaged) Battle of Guadalcanal, Gilbert Islands, Kwajalein, Truk Raid, Iwo, Okinawa(took a kamikaze) and many Pacific raids 1942-45. Her air group, along with the Yorktown's did the majority of the damage at Midway. Without her the victory in the Pacific would undoubtedly have been longer in coming. She was the USS Enterprise. There is no telling the amount of tonnage of Japanese shipping her AC put on the bottom or the number of Japanese AC she was responsible for downing. She earned her keep and then some. The Big E will go down in history as the fightinist ship in US Navy history.



renrich, No doubt about it  

TO


----------



## magnocain (Nov 30, 2007)

> I'm going with the grand old USS Missori BB-63.


I agree


----------



## ccheese (Nov 30, 2007)

Seeing as how I served in USS Essex (CV-9) from 1960 to 1964, I have to give the old girl the nod. BTW, Essex motto was "E Navibus Pugnisima"...
The Fightingest Ship.

The fourth Essex (CV-9) was launched 31 July 1942 by Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. sponsored by Mrs. Artemus L. Gates, wife of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Air; and commissioned 31 December 1942, Captain D. B. Duncan command ing. She was reclassified (CVA-9) on 1 October 1952, and (CVS-9) on 8 March 1960. 

Following her shakedown cruise Essex sailed to the Pacific in May 1943 to begin a succession of victories which would bring her to Tokyo Bay. Departing Pearl Harbor, she participated with TF 16 in carrier operations against Marcus Island (31 Aug ust 1943); was designated flagship of TF 14 and struck Wake Island (5-6 October); launched an attack with TG 50.3 against the Gilbert Islands where she also took part in her first amphibious assault, the landing on Tarawa (18-23 November). Refueling at se a, she cruised as [367] flagship of TG 50.3 to attack Kwajalein (4 December). Her second amphibious assault delivered in company with TG 58.2 was against the Marshalls (29 January-2 February 1944). 

Essex in TG 68.2 now joined with TG 58.1 and 58.3, to constitute the most formidable carrier striking force to date, in launching an attack against Truk (17-18 February) during which eight Japanese ships weresunk. En route to the Marianas to sev er Japanese supply lines, the carrier force was detected and received a prolonged aerial attack which it repelled in a businesslike manner and then continued with the scheduled attack upon Saipan, Tinian and Guam (23 February). 

After this operation Essex proceeded to San Francisco for her single wartime overhaul. She then joined carriers Wasp CV-18 and San Jacinto (CVL-30) in TG 12.1 to strike Marcus Island (19-20 May) and Wake (23 May). She deployed wit h TF 58 to support the occupation of the Marianas (12 June-10 August); sortied with TG 38.3 to lead an attack against the Palau Islands (6-8 September), and Mindanao (9-10 September) with enemy shipping as the main target, and remained in the area to supp ort landings on Peleliu. On 2 October she weathered a typhoon and 4 days later departed with TF 38 for the Ryukyus. 

For the remainder of 1944 she continued her frontline action, participating in strikes against Okinawa (10 October), and Formosa (12-14 October), covering the Leyte landings, taking part in the battle for Leyte Gulf (24-25 October), and continuing the search for enemy fleet units until 30 October when she returned to Ulithi, Caroline Islands, for replenishment. She resumed the offensive and delivered attacks on Manila and the northern Philippine Islands during November. On 25 November, for the first ti me in her far-ranging operations and destruction to the enemy, Essex received injury. A kamikaze hit the port edge of her flight deck landing among planes gassed for takeoff, causing extensive damage, killing 15, and wounding 44. 
This "cramped her style" very little. Following quick repairs we find her with 3d Fleet off Luzon supporting the occupation of Mindoro (14-16 December). She rode out the typhoon of 18 December and made special search for survivors afterwards. With TG 3 8.3 she participated in the Lingayen Gulf operations, launched strikes against Formosa, Sakishima, Okinawa, and Luzon. Entering the South China Sea in search of enemy surface forces, the task force pounded shipping and conducted strikes on Formosa, the Ch ina coast, Hainan, and Hong Kong. Essex withstood the onslaught of the third typhoon in 4 months (20-21 January 1945) before striking again at Formosa, Miyako Shima and Okinawa (26-27 January). 

During the remainder of the war she operated with TF 58, conducting attacks against the Tokyo area (16-17, and 25 February) both to neutralize the enemy's airpower before the landings on Iwo Jima and to cripple the aircraft manufacturing industry. She sent support missions against Iwo Jima and neighboring islands, but from 23 March to 28 May was employed primarily to support the conquest of Okinawa. 

In the closing days of the war, Essex took part in the final telling raids against the Japanese home islands (10 July-15 August). Following the surrender, she continued defensive combat air patrols until 3 September when she was ordered to Breme rton, Wash., for inactivation. On 9 January 1947 she was placed out of commission in reserve. 

Modernization endowed Essex with a new flight deck, and a streamlined island superstructure, on 16 January 1951 when recommissioned, Captain A. W. Wheelock commanding. 

After a brief cruise in Hawaiian waters she began the first of three tours in Far Eastern waters during the Korean war. She served as flagship for Carrier Division 1 and TF 77. She was the first carrier to launch F2H "Banshee" twinjet fighters on comba t missions; on 16 September 1951 one of these planes, damaged in combat, crashed into aircraft parked on the forward flight deck causing an explosion and fire which killed seven. After repairs at Yokosuka she returned to frontline action on 3 October to l aunch strikes up to the Yalu River and provide close air support for U.N. troops. 
On 1 December 1953 she started her final tour of the war, sailing the China Sea with the Peace Patrol. From November 1954 to June 1955 she engaged in training exercises, operated for 3 months with the 7th Fleet, assisted in the Tachen Islands evacuatio n, and engaged in air operations and fleet manuevers off Okinawa. 

In July 1955 Essex entered Puget Sound Naval Shipyard for repairs and extensive alterations, including installation of an angled flight deck. Modernization completed, she rejoined the Pacific Fleet in March 1956. For the next 14 months the carri er operated off the west coast, except for a 6-month cruise with the 7th Fleet in the Far East. Ordered to join the Atlantic Fleet for the first time in her long career, she sailed from San Diego on 21 June 1957, rounded Cape Horn, and arrived in Mayport, Fla., on 1 August. 
In the fall of 1957 Essex participated as an anti-submarine carrier in the NATO exercises, "Strike Back," and in February 1968 deployed with the 6th Fleet until May when she shifted to the eastern Mediterranean. Alerted to the Middle East crisis on 14 July 1958 she sped to support the U.S. Peace Force landing in Beirut, Lebanon, launching reconnaissance and patrol missions until 20 August. Once again she was ordered to proceed to Asian waters, and transmitted the Suez Canal to arrive in the Taiw an operational area where she joined TF 77 in conducting flight operations before rounding the Horn and proceeding back to Mayport. 

Essex joined with the 2d Fleet and British ships in Atlantic exercises and with NATO forces in the eastern Mediterranean during the fall of 1959. In December she aided victims of a disastrous flood at Frejus, France. 
In the spring of 1960 she was converted into an ASW Support Carrier and was thereafter homeported at Quonset Point, R.I. Since that time she has operated as flagship of Carrier Division 18 and Antisubmarine Carrier Group Three. She conducted rescue and salvage operations off the New Jersey coast for a downed blimp; cruised with midshipmen, and was deployed on NATO and CENTO exercises. In November she joined the French navy in Operation "Jet Stream" and since that time has continued her widespread activ ities in protection of freedom and peace. 

Essex received the Presidential Unit Citation, and 13 battle stars for World War II service; 4 battle stars and the Navy Unit Commendation for Korean war service. 

She was a good ship.....

Charles


----------



## renrich (Dec 1, 2007)

Good stuff on the Essex, Charles. During the Battle of Santa Cruz, the Big E, though damaged, landed, without mishap, 47 planes in 43 minutes. Because the Hornet was badly damaged the Enterprise had to take in her planes as well as her own. At the last enough room on the flight deck was left so that only the number one wire could be used. When the flight deck was filled so operations were stopped to strike planes below there were still 21 TBFs aloft.


----------



## comiso90 (Dec 1, 2007)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQpOQA3xbjg_



.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 1, 2007)

Would agree on the Essex class as a whole as being the most influential ships of the war. Charles, great post.


----------



## renrich (Dec 1, 2007)

I am sticking with the Big E as my pick but my sentimental favorite warship of WW2 was the USS Salt Lake City, CA25 because one of my uncles served on her 1941-43 during all her surface actions. Am currently reading a book about USS Dale, a DD during WW2 and an interesting point was made by a tin can sailor on the Dale about SLC during the Battle of the Komondorskis, March, 1943. Two US cruisers, Salt Lake City and Richmond a somewhat elderly CL along with 4 DDs engaged two Nachi class CAs, 2 Tama class CLs and 4 IJN DDs. When the US task force commander Adm. McMorris in Richmond realised how outnumbered they were he ordered the US ships to retire with the Richmond in the lead. The DD sailor said at one point the Richmond was as much as 6000 yards in front of the Salt Lake. Anyway the SLC did most of the fighting in a stern chase with the 2 Jap CAs. The Nachi class had a 2-3 knot speed advantage on the SLC and they mounted 10- 8 inch guns each so periodically they veered out of line astern to present their full broadsides and when they did they had 20-8 inch guns trained on SLC at ranges as close as 18000 yards. The DD sailors said the IJN salvoes were very tight and since they were screening SLC they were definitely in harm's way. Here is the interesting observation. The SLC and her sister Pensacola were the first two US CAs built after the first naval treaty after WW1 which limited cruisers to 10000 tons and they were the only US CAs with four turrets, one triple superimposed over one twin forward and the same arrangement aft. All subsequent US CAs had only one triple turret aft with two forward. The significance of this was that SLC during a good portion of the fight could only fire from her after turrets, the forward turrets being masked by her superstructure. Because of the unusual turret arrangement, one turret could engage one Jap CA and the other could engage the other CA, at least giving both enemy ships something to worry about. If the US CA had been one of the more modern cruisers, there would have been only one turret to engage two ships with. Anyway, the SLC fired more than 800 rounds of 8 inch shell and my uncle who was a CGM said they were moving ammo from the forward magazines to the after guns and they ran out of AP then used up the HC and at the end were firing star shells.


----------



## Glider (Dec 1, 2007)

If you want to have the most influential class of warship then I believe its the other end of the spectrum.
I would go for the River Class frigates. This formed that backbone of the A/S war in the Atlantic and formed the basis for the design of the US Destroyer Escorts. If you total these together you will have over 500 warships based on the River Class. That is influence.

The Essex class were superb vessels and had a major impact on the war, but what did they Influence? 
The Enterprise had a very active war and influenced the design of the Essex Class.
The Illustrious (which I admit was my choice for vessel) had a busy war, Influenced the design of later carriers and developed tactics which certainly had an impact on the war.


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 3, 2007)

I would have to pick one of three US carriers that participated in the Battle of Midway. Enterprise, Hornet, or Yorktown. Take your pick. These 3 ships and all their men changed the tide in favor of the allies in the Pacific.


----------



## renrich (Dec 3, 2007)

Messy, no doubt the Midway battle was the most important battle in the Pacific and one of the most important battles fought in all history. Your pick of those carriers is good but if you examine the battle closely the Hornet air group, because of it's inexperience, did not have as much influence on the battle as the other two carrier's AGs. Of course the Yorktown was sunk in the battle and the Hornet was sunk a few months later in the Solomons. The Enterprise went on to fight in more major battles than any other major unit in the US Navy. That is the reason why I picked Enterprise.


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 3, 2007)

Very good reasoning renrich. I see. I just was not able to pick one of those 3 ships over the other. But your point of view makes sense. Yorktown is a personal favorite of mine as a young boy in the Boy Scouts, my troop stayed on the next ship that carried the Yorktown name, the CV-10 Yorktown.


----------



## WARSPITER (Dec 5, 2007)

Perhaps from another perspective there are two ships that had a huge influence on WWII.

1. The ship that fired the first shots of the war in Poland thus starting the whole thing off.

2. Yamamotos' flagship in the attack on Pearl Harbour. This would have been where the signal to attack came from which sent the US into the war and would have sent shivers down the spines of clear thinkers in an automatically doomed Germany.

PS I would have included the German submarine but it was a boat, not a ship.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 5, 2007)

The Big E for me. Essex had outstanding war record, but the Big E's contribution at Midway was pivotal in the most important single naval engagement of the war and she pretty much much took the lead in most of them.

The Hornet most important psychlogically because of the Doolittle raid from "Shangri-la".

BB-63 as most important symbolically as point of Surrender of Japanese - and her 'longest' continuous service after that.


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 6, 2007)

On a personal note, it is a little sad to me that the mighty battleships of the world's navy's started taking a taking a backseat during WW2 to the aircraft carrier. There just is a aura or mystique that the battleships still carry that will not be replaced by the carrriers. Maybe it is due to the fact that you can trace the battleships long history that started with the first wooden gunboats, and thru developement and its own evolution, met its peak in the battleships of WW2. Weather it is the monster battleships of Japan, the fast ships of the Iowa class, or the Germany's legendary Bismarck class, they all still capture the imagination.


----------



## Freebird (Dec 6, 2007)

renrich said:


> I hope this subject has not been discussed before but what individual ship in WW2 in all the combatant's navies *had the most influential and illustrious war record.* This would include all ships of all navies active in the war and although they were called boats, it would include submarines. Please understand I am talking about an individual unit such as USS Tang or U525 or HMS Warspite. I would do this in a poll but don't know how to set it up. I have my candidate picked and will post it later. Have at it.



WARSPITER! Hoew could you not pick one of the QE class battleships! LOL you know which one! The HMS Warspite had more battle honours of any Battleship going all the way back to Jutland. 

At Jutland she was hit suffered a jammed rudder, forcing her to make 2 complete loops in between the two battle fleets. 5+ german Battleships fired at least a dozen broadsides at her, but survived with only 46 casualties without critical damage, and sailed home on her own

At Narvik in 1940 the Warspite's attack on the port (w/destroyer escort) helped to sink 8+ German destroyers, which was a critical factor in the failure of Sealion. (The German Navy had less than 10 destroyers left for Sealion, not enough to prevent the British submarines from sinking German transports in the Channel)

Later in 1941 1942 as Cunninghams flagship in the Med, she played a key role in defeating the Italians at the battles of Cape Matapan, participated at Crete, Salerno others, preventing the larger Italian navy from gaining control of the Med. 

Also provided shore bombardment for Overlord


----------



## Thorlifter (Dec 6, 2007)

Not discounting the combat records of any ship, but if I am forced to pick one, I'd go with the Enterprise. Thanks for the record of the Essex Charles. That was a good read.


----------



## renrich (Dec 6, 2007)

Messy 1, I too really love the BB. It is the epitome of power with all the guns. These modern ships today with maybe only one or two 5 inchers even though they are automatic don't look like true warships and they don't do it for me. The perverse old Warspite is probably my favorite BB. She seemed to have a mind of her own. If I remember right she actually took a notion to jam her rudder again (just like at "windy corner" during Jutland,)when they were towing her to the breakers and she ran herself aground. The Brits got their money's worth with the Queen Elisabeths and especially Warspite. However if one considers the individual ship that actually influenced the war the most, Big E has a war record second to none. If you read about the individual battles she fought in, particularly in 1942 and 43. it is truly amazing that she survived. She was not only well designed(for her time) and well manned, but she was a lucky ship. It is shameful that we did not preserve her.


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 6, 2007)

renrich-
It always amazes me how some nations put or almost put their countries into debt by building capital ships. You were not considered a naval power unless you had Battleship in the first half of the century. My dream vacation would be going to Pearl Harbor and visiting all the history. I want to walk on the decks of the Missouri and feel all that history. I want to pay my respects to all the men on the Arizona who lost their lives!


----------



## renrich (Dec 6, 2007)

It is especially amazing to think about the shipbuilding frenzy that took place after Jacky Fisher contrived to have HMS Dreadnought designed and built. It seemed as if every country in the world that bordered an ocean had to have a few dreadnoughts.


----------



## Glider (Dec 6, 2007)

For the most extensive war record I propose the IJN Yukikaze

These include
South Philippine attack forces
Battle of Java Sea
New Guinea invasion forces
Battle of Midway
Battle of Santa Cruz
First Battle of Guadalcanal
Troop evacuations from Guadalcanal
Battle of Bismark Sea
Battle of Kolombangara ( helped sink USS Gwin, Damage USS Honalulu, USS St Louis)
Battle of Philippine Sea
Battle of Leyte Gulf

In the entire war she only had one crew member killed, two wounded and no serious damage.

No warship of any navy I believe can match this record.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 6, 2007)

Glider said:


> For the most extensive war record I propose the IJN Yukikaze
> 
> These include
> South Philippine attack forces
> ...


I'd vote for that ship one helluva a record


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 6, 2007)

I also find it amazing at how the sizes of the ships increased and how rapid the advances in ship building took place between WW1 to WW2. Ships that were considered modern just 15-20 years earlier, a good many of them were out of date and not very effective by WW2. And then after World War 2, as a force they were too shortly almost become extinct!


----------



## Freebird (Dec 6, 2007)

renrich said:


> Messy 1, I too really love the BB. It is the epitome of power with all the guns. These modern ships today with maybe only one or two 5 inchers even though they are automatic don't look like true warships and they don't do it for me. The perverse old Warspite is probably my favorite BB. She seemed to have a mind of her own. If I remember right she actually took a notion to jam her rudder again (just like at "windy corner" during Jutland,)when they were towing her to the breakers and she ran herself aground. The Brits got their money's worth with the Queen Elisabeths and especially Warspite. However if one considers the individual ship that actually influenced the war the most, Big E has a war record second to none. If you read about the individual battles she fought in, particularly in 1942 and 43. it is truly amazing that she survived. She was not only well designed(for her time) and well manned, but she was a lucky ship. It is shameful that we did not preserve her.



Yes what fools they were to scrap her, the Brits were not very farsighted in keeping ships/planes of historical importance


----------



## timshatz (Dec 7, 2007)

As an individual ship is concerned, I would go with Enterprise in terms of what it did. Involved pretty much from first to the last and had a big impact all the way through.

In terms of reputation, probably the Tirpitz. Kept the British and US Atlantic forces on their toes for the majority of the war. Not much in terms of actually getting anything done, but it existed as a "Threat in Being" so the Allies always had to be ready for her breaking out. Kept a lot of ships waiting around for something to happen.

In terms of what class had the greatest impact, the Gato Class Submarine. Sank something like 60% of Japanese shipping, a large percentage of warships and essentially destroyed the Japanese Merchant Fleet. Succeeded where the U-boats failed (cutting off sealanes to an island and therefore, ending the economic viability of the Japanese economy). Huge contribution by one class of ships.


----------



## renrich (Dec 7, 2007)

Yukikaze is interesting but how much influence did she have in the battles she participated in and how many of those battles were IJN successes?


----------



## Glider (Dec 7, 2007)

renrich said:


> Yukikaze is interesting but how much influence did she have in the battles she participated in and how many of those battles were IJN successes?



Almost none (what single destroyer could) but people were starting to base their success criteria on battle record and hers is second to none.

My choice is still the Illustrious. 
Enterprise was very valuble and took part in most of the important battles in the Pacific. But the Illustrious had a major influence on the way the Pacific War started. 
An interesting question is 'if the Japanese hadn't worked out a way to attack Pearl Harbour so effectively, would they have attacked?


----------



## ToughOmbre (Dec 7, 2007)

Glider said:


> For the most extensive war record I propose the IJN Yukikaze
> 
> These include
> South Philippine attack forces
> ...



Have to respectfully disagree with you Glider. What damage did the Yukikaze inflict on the American fleet? Not much, especially compared to "The Big "E". 

The Big E earned 20 of a total of 22 battle stars awarded in the Pacific theatre of operations. *She is officially credited with downing 911 enemy planes, sinking 71 ships and damaging almost 200 others.*

A red star - *** - indicates operations where Enterprise was damaged by air attack.

*Pearl Harbor*
Anti-Submarine Action, Class B Assessment (December 7-10, 1941)

*Pacific Raids*
Marshall-Gilbert Islands* (February 1, 1942)
Wake Island (February 24, 1942)
Marcus Island (March 4, 1942)

*Doolittle Raid* (April 18, 1942)

*Battle of Midway* (June 4-6, 1942)

*Battle of Guadalcanal*
Invasion by USMC 1st Division (August 7-9, 1942)

*Capture and Defense of Guadalcanal* (August 10-25, 1942)

*Battle of the Eastern Solomons** (August 24, 1942)

*Battle of Santa Cruz** (October 26, 1942)

*Naval Battle of Guadalcanal* (November 13-15, 1942)

*Battle of Rennell Island* (January 29-30, 1943)

*Gilbert Islands Operations*
Invasion of Makin Island (November 19 - December 4, 1943)

*Marshall Islands Operations*
Invasion of Kwajalein (January 28 - February 8, 1944)
Maloelap/Taroa Raid

*Asiatic-Pacific Raids*
Truk Islands (February 16-17, 1944) Palau, Yap, Ulithi, Woleai (March 30 
- April 1, 1944) Truk Islands (April 29 - May 1, 1944)
Hollandia (New Guinea) Operations (April 21-24, 1944)
Invasion (April 22, 1944)

*Mariana Islands Operations*
Capture and Occupation of Saipan (June 11-24, 1944)
Mariana Turkey Shoot (June 19, 1944)
First Battle of the Philippine Sea (June 20, 1944)
"The night they turned on the lights" (June 20, 1944)

*Western Pacific Operations*
Raids on Bonin Islands, Chichi Jima (August 31 - September 2, 1944)
Raid on Caroline Islands, Yap (September 6, 1944)
Raid on Palau Islands (September 10-16, 1944)
Invasion and Capture of Peleliu (September 16, 1944)
Raid on Okinawa (October 10, 1944)
Raid on Formosa (October 12, 1944)
Raid on Manila (October 15-18, 1944

*Invasion of Leyte Island/3rd Fleet Operations*
Luzon Attacks (October 15 and 17-19, 1944)
Battle of Leyte Gulf (October 24-26, 1944)

*Luzon Operations*
Invasion of Luzon (January 6-7, 1945)
Formosa Raids (January 3, 4, 9, 15, 1945)
South China Sea Attacks (January 12-16, 1945)

*Night Carrier Group 90/5th Fleet Raids*
Tokyo and Honshu Raids (February 15-16, 1945)

*Assault and Occupation of Iwo Jima* (February 23 - March 12, 1945)

*Okinawa Operations*

Pre-Invasion Raids on Kyushu* (March 18-20, 1945)
Invasion and Capture of Okinawa* (April 7 - May 15, 1945)
Kyushu and Shikoku Raids* (May 11-16, 1945)

TO


----------



## davparlr (Dec 7, 2007)

renrich said:


> Yukikaze is interesting but how much influence did she have in the battles she participated in and how many of those battles were IJN successes?



Your argument for the Enterprise is most persuasive.


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 7, 2007)

I don't think any of the nations were very farsighted enough to think about keeping too many planes and ships, tanks, etc. around for history's sake. Just look at the lenths that are being gone too to rescue restorable planes, tanks etc. My avatar is the Gaclier Girl. Kind of hard to beat that plane for a salvage effort story. It is sad to think about all the great ships that have been sent to the breakers.


----------



## renrich (Dec 7, 2007)

Messy 1, the technological advances you mentioned are indeed amazing but I guess they are pretty much mirrored by tech advances in all fields during the 20th century. The tech advance I enjoy most is probably the Dreadnought story because of my interest in battleships. Even though other navies were advancing the idea of an all big gun BB, Fisher ran with the idea and in 1906, when HMS Dreadnought was launched after a build time of only about a year, every other battleship in the world, some of them brand new and many of them British, suddenly became obsolete. Interestingly, Fisher was criticised by many of the admirals in the RN for upsetting the balance of power and rendering so many of Britain's ships useless. Actually the USN had plans to build a dreadnought, the South Carolina, I think was it's name but was not in a hurry or it may have been the first dreadnought launched. It is quite a story.


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 7, 2007)

I watched a show a while back about the Dreadnoughts on either the Military Channel or The History Channel. I think it was called The Battleships maybe? Have not watched it in a while, but your last post did remind me of the show, and I now do recall some of the info you gave on the Dreadnought! Like to watch it all over again. I do recall that the HMS Dreadnought did render almost every other ship obsolete over night. I want to find a good book aboutthe battleships.


----------



## DBII (Dec 7, 2007)

Not far from where I live is BB35, Battleship Texas. It was launched in 1912 and commissioned in 1914. At the time, the Texas was the strongest ship in the world. BB35 is the only remaining dreadnought in the world. Several years ago, she was towed to dry dock and the hull was completely overhauled. 

She was used in both world wars. During WWII, the USS Texas was used in the North Atlantic and the invasions of North Africa, Normandy, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The USS Texas is not well know but her history is long and colorful. 

DBII


----------



## Glider (Dec 7, 2007)

Would you settle for best small ship


----------



## renrich (Dec 7, 2007)

I am good with most influential small ship. That would make an interesting discussion. That brings into play HMS Onslow, USS Johnston, USS England etc. Should we make the category ships under 2500 tons?


----------



## renrich (Dec 7, 2007)

Interesting point about the Texas is that she was quite powerful for her day but one of the great advances in HMS Dreadnought was that she had turbine engines which gave her more speed and were much more reliable. Because of some dispute with engine manufacturers, Texas reverted to reciprocating engines which was somewhat of her achilles heel.


----------



## T4.H (Dec 7, 2007)

Glider:

IJN Yukikaze
1945:
6-7 April:
Escorted YAMATO from Inland Sea on attack mission towards Okinawa. Rescued YAMATO survivors; later removed survivors from ISOKAZE and scuttled with torpedoes. Light damage: in attacks by aircraft of TF 58 due to strafing; three dead and 15 injured.

30 July:
Minor damage: in air attack by TF 38 in Miyatsu Bay, due to strafing; one dead and several wounded.

You forgot one attack.



If you are looking for japanese war ships, look here...
Nihon Kaigun


----------



## Glider (Dec 7, 2007)

renrich said:


> I am good with most influential small ship. That would make an interesting discussion. That brings into play HMS Onslow, USS Johnston, USS England etc. Should we make the category ships under 2500 tons?



To be honest it would be interesting to do a selection

Escort
Destroyer
Cruiser
BB 
Aircraft Carrier


----------



## renrich (Dec 7, 2007)

I agree,it will certainly make the discussion more encompassing to have the most influential individual ship of each class you mentioned, Glider.


----------



## Lucky13 (Dec 10, 2007)

For me it will always be USS Yorktown CV-5. But, as the question is most influential ship, wouldn't HMS Dreadnought fit in, one way or another? Pre and Post Dreadnought battleships I'm thinking about....


----------



## Pflueger (Dec 10, 2007)

Carrier: I gotta go with the Yorktown, can't forget her contribution at Coral Sea, while it was not pretty, she did her job: things would have been alot worse the Japanese gained strategic victory. Then being capable - against all odds to return to action in time for Midway, and absorb two waves of attacks (which may have found the other two carriers) while contriibuting to attack on Japanese carriers = thats big. 

Had not considered Enterprise's ongoing contributions, but in mind Yorktown was there at both the pivotal battles - and without her taking the pounding (2x), Enterprise's career may well have been cut short.

Think selecting BB would be tough, I may go Tirpitz since her presence in Norway caused some much distraction and diversion of resources for such a long period. But do like the comment on Warspite = sinking 1/2 of Germany's tin cans was an accomplishment.

Escort under 2,500 tons: agree, any Taffy 3 escort is worthy.

Destroyer: Yukikaze will do fine

Cruiser? hmmm... Ajax or Achilles = they gave Brits a big lift that was sorely needed.


----------



## DBII (Dec 10, 2007)

The Texas was the first US BB to launch an aircraft. If anyone is interested, the navy history link for BB35 is below. Not a major player in the war but the last of her kind with a long history of service.

U.S. Navy Battleships - USS Texas (BB 35)


----------



## Freebird (Dec 10, 2007)

Pflueger said:


> Carrier: I gotta go with the Yorktown, can't forget her contribution at Coral Sea, while it was not pretty, she did her job: things would have been alot worse the Japanese gained strategic victory. Then being capable - against all odds to return to action in time for Midway, and absorb two waves of attacks (which may have found the other two carriers) while contriibuting to attack on Japanese carriers = thats big.
> 
> Had not considered Enterprise's ongoing contributions, but in mind Yorktown was there at both the pivotal battles - and without her taking the pounding (2x), Enterprise's career may well have been cut short.
> 
> ...



Don't forget the Exeter was at "River Plate" too... Classic wartime bluff!

Yes and it was a big risk sending in the Warspite, there were at least 4 U-boats lurking around hoping to sink her. The 15" guns sure did a good job on the shore guns too!


----------



## ThunderThud (Dec 10, 2007)

! believe the most influential ship of the second world war was the Liberty ship.with out them and the speed of the assembly line it would have been a totally different war. my opinion.


----------



## ThunderThud (Dec 10, 2007)

! believe the most influential ship of the second world war was the Liberty ship.with out them and the speed of the assembly line it would have been a totally different war. my opinion.


----------



## Pflueger (Dec 11, 2007)

No doubt the liberty ships did their part, but it would be impossible to single out one liberty ship. Would be interesting to name the one support-type vessel that had most impact - off the top of my head I ain't got one.

Freebird: yup I forgot the Exeter - always have trouble recalling the name of third cruiser for some reason = Ajax/Achilles roll off the tongue better I suppose.

Warspite would be in contention for "coolest looking BB" as well, although I do have to admit that I have a thing for Kongo class BBs.


----------



## Lucky13 (Dec 11, 2007)

As the liberty ships, we also have the Escort Carriers....the Jeeps!






View of USS Santee probably taken in late 1942


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Dec 17, 2007)

While I am a big fan off the U.S.S Yorktown, I agree that the Enterprise was a major influence. I believe that she was one of the few carriers built before 1942 that survived the whole war. I was kinda pissed when I found out she was scrapped, should have been a muesuem. 

Oh and Comiso, you asked which Japanese destroyer Mcclusky followed to the flaptops, It was the Arashi catching up to the fleet after chasing the American sub Nautilus


----------



## renrich (Dec 27, 2007)

In picking a cruiser I think one has to consider one of the pre war US CAs that were practically all the US had in the way of surface ships to fight the war in the Pacific in 1942 and early 1943.. My choice is San Francisco, CA38. Her battle honors include Pearl Harbor, Guadalcanal-Tulagi,, Cape Esperance, Guadalcanal Battle, Attu, Gilbert Islands, Kwajalein, Truk Raid, Hollandia, Marianas, Leyte, Iwo, Okinawa, Pacific raids. Whew! She was the flagship of the US TF at Cape Esperance and at The Battle of Guadalcanal where she was heavily damaged. Both were American victories and reversed the tide against the IJN. At the Battle of Guadalcanal her guns undoubtedly played a major role in the damage to the Hiei, the IJN BB that was so badly damaged in that night gun battle that she succumbed easily to air attack the next day. I don't believe any other cruiser had as much impact on the outcome of the war although there are several other US cruisers that come close.


----------



## Divplaksnis (Dec 29, 2007)

I think Nazi U-bots were most influential ships because


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 29, 2007)

Divplaksnis said:


> I think Nazi U-bots were most influential ships because



Because...


----------



## mkloby (Dec 29, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Because...


----------



## renrich (Dec 29, 2007)

The thread was started to name the most influential individual ship such as HMS....... or USS.........


----------



## Divplaksnis (Dec 29, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Because...




Because they almost destroyed UK defense by sinking ally support ships. Their used Wolf pack strategy was excellent.


----------



## Freebird (Dec 29, 2007)

Divplaksnis said:


> Because they almost destroyed UK defense by sinking all support ships. Their used Wolf pack strategy was excellent.



Yes, they were a huge threat in WWII


----------



## Lucky13 (Dec 29, 2007)

Wasn't the Gato class a better submarine then the type VII?

*Gato:* She formed the basis of the largest class of submarines ever built, counting the Balao Tench, which weren't substantially different. 
*Growler:* Skipper, Howard W. Gilmore, earned the Sub Force's first combat Medal of Honor for ordering his boat to dive after he was wounded 7 February 1943 by fire from provision ship Hayasaki and was unable to reach the hatch in time. 
*Grunion:* Mannert L. Abele earned the Sub Force's first Navy Cross, when his boat vanished off Kiska in July 1942. 
*Darter:* She was the only U.S. boat in the Pacific War lost to grounding. 
*Trigger:* She became famous in Edward L. "Ned" Beach's book Submarine!
*Wahoo:* She was commanded by the Sub Force's most famous skipper, Dudley W. "Mush" Morton, was the first U.S. sub into the Sea of Japan. She was sunk exiting in 1943 after a second excursion. 
*Cobia:[/b[ She sank Japanese tank reinforcements which were en route to Iwo Jima. 
Flasher: She was the top-scoring U.S. boat of the war, with 100,231 tons officially credited to her by the Joint Army-Navy Assessment Committee JANAC. 
Harder: She was commanded by Samuel D. Dealey, the only submariner of the war (perhaps the only one ever) to sink five enemy destroyers, four in a single patrol. 
Mingo: She was lent to the Japanese after the war, under the name Kuroshio. 
Cavalla: She sunk the carrier Shōkaku. Shōkaku had participated in the attack on Pearl Harbor.






USS Gato (SS-212), December 1941.*


----------



## Ramirezzz (Dec 30, 2007)

all big american CNVs like USS Enterprise or Yorktown. Nowadays you won't find any small carriers in their fleet


----------



## HerrKaleut (Jun 1, 2009)

I stand to be corrected but surely, if you are saying influential ship, you mean in the way that Dreadnaught was influential,not because of the achievements of her commander as have been quoted. (e.g. would Wahoo have been so successful had Morton not had her, Midway was a US victory through the "gods of war" not the fact that such and such carriers were there.) A british carrier was influential in the area of armoured flight decks over wooden, a german battleship influenced a whole naval strategy just by laying at anchor, and the Hood influenced the whole world in the demise of the Battlecruiser. Thats what I understand by influential


----------



## renrich (Jun 1, 2009)

If you look at the original question, it refers to a specific, individual ship. I will stick to the USS Enterprise. Without her and her air group, the Pacific War would have been much different.


----------



## comiso90 (Jun 1, 2009)

renrich said:


> If you look at the original question, it refers to a specific, individual ship. I will stick to the USS Enterprise. Without her and her air group, the Pacific War would have been much different.



I agree...

The worth of the Enterprise cannot be overstated... One my barometers of the worth of a ship, airplane or almost anything else is to remove it from the equation and postulate on the ramifications...

If the Enterprise were sunk at early Midway, I believe the Japanese would have occupied Pearl Harbor. 

If the cross channel dash on D-Day was tough, can you imagine the obstacles to re-take Pearl? The US would have hunkered into defense mode while it built enough carriers to return.

Perhaps Northern Australia and mainland Alaska would have been occupied.

No other ship in these posts come close... the discussion needs to be about #2..


----------



## fly boy (Jun 1, 2009)

ToughOmbre said:


> The aircraft carrier. And specifically, as syscom3 stated, the Essex Class.
> 
> TO



i have to agree on that one


----------



## diddyriddick (Jun 1, 2009)

I'm gonna go with Renrich on this one. Just wish I'da had his eloquence.

Enterprise.


----------



## Amsel (Jun 1, 2009)

I would vote for the Big "E" due to her record. I would also mention the USS Wahoo( SS-238 ) for the amount of tonnage sunk in the least amount of time; a total of 93,281 tons sunk and 30,880 damaged in only 25 patrol days. I am also impressed with the _Dace_ and the _Darter_ for sinking the Atago and seriously damaging the Takao when these two subs initiated the Battle of Suriago Strait.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 1, 2009)

But the Essex class carriers is the culmination of all of the years of prewar theory and experiences, with the 1942 experiences of the Pacific battles adopted into their designs.

These carriers had good speed, could absorb brutal damage, had a huge air wing capacity, had decent defensive firepower, and finally, had a decent and effective CIC to orchestrate offensive and defensive operations.

And their design was perfect from a ship builders perspective. Regardless of the US industrial might, these were easy ships to build and get operational for their size.

When you consider that these were the epitome of what an aircraft carrier should look like, and operate as, there should be no other conclusion. These were the most influential ships of the second world war.

Even if one were to give credit to the Brits for innovations, it was a case of not enough to influence the battle.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 1, 2009)

I would nominate the HMS Breconshire, the supply ship that made it through to Malta during that islands darkest hour. Pounded to the point of sinking, with most of her crew dead or woulnded, her Captain and the convoy escorts assisting her, refused to give up. 

I attach the following history of this most gallant and influential ships in history. perhaps not the the most impressive, but her survival can be said to hav influecned the outcome of a campaign....

_BRECONSHIRE (1) was built in 1939 by Taikoo Dk Engineering Co. at Hong Kong with a tonnage of 9776grt, a length of 507ft, a beam of 66ft 3 in and a service speed of 18 knots. On completion she was acquired by the Admiralty and converted into an Auxiliary Supply Ship and commissioned as HMS Breconshire. On 15th April she ran into Malta supported by Admiral Cunningham's naval strength and an enemy attack on this fleet enable a number of empty merchantmen to to make a break for Alexandria. Between 21st-26th July she participated in 'Operation Substance' when a convoy of six ships fought through to Malta allowing the Breconshire and six empty cargo ships to escape eastwards. In all, HMS Breconshire made more trips to Malta than any other merchantman. Ensuring the survival of Malta was vital and every effort was made to keep the island supplied, so much so, that on 17th December 1941 three cruisers and fourteen destroyers were deployed to ensure that the Breconshire got through. However, in March 1942, under the command of Capt. Colin Hutchinson RN, she was to fight her last battle. She left Alexandria on 20th March, as commodore ship, with a cargo mainly consisting of high explosive and kerosene, accompanied by Clan Campbell (Clan Line), Pampas (Buries Marks) and the Talabot (Wilhelmsen). The next day, by which time the Clan Campbell was straggling, the convoy was met by Admiral Vian on HMS Cleopatra, three other cruiser and 16 destroyers. Aircraft provided overhead cover and three submarines were patrolling to the north. On the 22nd there were several ineffective attacks by Italian Savoia bombers but HM submarine P 36 reported heavy Italian surface fleet steaming to intercept. At 13.30 an aircraft dropped a line of flares to guide the Italian force towards the convoy and with them began the Battle of Sirte Gulf. Six destroyers and the anti-aircraft cruiser HMS Carlisle were delegated to protect the convoy while the remainder of the escort steamed off to meet the oncoming Italians. Although a smoke screen was laid to screen the merchantmen bombing had started by mid-afternoon and was continuous with all the ships being straddled but, fortunately, not hit. By late-afternoon the Italian cruiser Littorio, three cruisers and twelve destroyers arrived on the scene and the convoy was ordered to alter course, southward, into the Sirte Gulf. Laying a smoke screen Vian's fleet went after the Italians whose objective was to get round the smoke to get a clear shot at the convoy. As they broke through Vian's cruiser fired a broadside of torpedoes which caused the Italians to turn away. The manoeuvre was repeated but after another broadside was fired the Italians withdrew and the battle was over. However, by now the merchantmen were so far south that they could not possibly reach Malta, some 240 miles away, under the cover of darkness. As the main escort no longer had the fuel or ammunition to provide effective cover Vian ordered the merchantmen to break convoy and head for Grand Harbour, Valetta at full speed. The Breconshire set off at 17 knots accompanied by the destroyers HMS Southwold and HMS Beaufort and the A.A. cruiser Carlisle and by daybreak they were only 20 miles from home. But enemy aircraft were already circling waiting to attack. Air support was requested but nothing was available to cover the ships as they approached Malta. On 23rd March a single Junkers 88 commenced the first attack which was followed by Me 109 fighter bombers who scored three hits. The Ju 88's returned at regular intervals scoring more hits by which time Breconshire was lying dead in the water, 10 miles from Malta. The cruiser, HMS Penelope left Valetta Harbour to take the ship in tow but twenty feet waves caused the tow to part leaving her to drift towards the protective minefields. By noon she managed to anchor short of the minefields and two cruiser and four destroyers gave her anti-aircraft protection. During the following night the anchors dragged and the mines were close enough to be clearly visible from the ship. HMS Southwold managed to get a tow line aboard but in doing so hit a mine and broke her back finally sinking later that day. The air attacks recommenced but the Breconshire was not hit and by midnight the weather abated sufficiently to allow HM tugs Ancient and Robust to reach the stricken ship. At 2.00 am on the 25th she was under tow but a strong wind prevented entry into Grand Harbour so it was decided to put her in Marsaxlokk Bay. As the ship turned the swell caused her to veer madly. Breconshire signalled the Ancient 'I have a strong tendency to come up into wind', to which Ancient replied 'You're telling me!' At 10.00 Breconshire entered the bay and moored to No.1 buoy and her exhausted crew were taken off for some well earned rest. The tanker HMS Plumleaf was delegated to go alongside and take off the kerosene and fuel oil but this could not be done until the tanks were freed and opened. While this was being done HMS Plumleaf was bombed and beached. The Luftwaffe, being determined to destroy the three merchantmen who made it, increased their air attacks with the Pampas and the Talabot being rendered unrecognisable and Breconshire being repeatedly dive bombed. On 26th March hasty repairs were commenced so that she could be towed into Grand Harbour. The air attacks resumed and at 18.30 a lone Ju 88 scored four direct hits which caused a fire that was quickly brought under control. Miraculously the ship did not explode but she was settling and listing to port and by sunset the port rail was under water. At daybreak on the 27th she was still afloat but fires had again broken out, abaft the No.3 hold was a blazing inferno and ammunition was beginning to explode. The Captain and fourteen officers went out to her by launch but attempts to scuttle her fail because of the intensive heat. Moments after Capt. Hutchinson slid off the ship she rolled on her side and then capsized. In April 1954 she was raised and, upside down, towed to Trieste where, after examination to see if repair was possible, she was broken up. _


----------



## Njaco (Jun 1, 2009)

Parsifal, I've always admired how the USS _'Ohio' _got through to Malta during Operation Pedistal.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 1, 2009)

wqually impressive and incredibly brave....and probably every bit as important to the allied war effort in my opinion. The point is this....warships of the enterprise or Bismark or Illustrious genre are important, and their crews outstandingly brave....but in the end it is the lowly merchantman that is th reason for all that firepower.....and these guys dont have 100 aircraft, or 15" guns or 10 inches of plate stell or 30 knots of speed to protect them. All they had was their courage and tenacity and seamanship to get them through.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 1, 2009)

parsifal and njaco ..... but what influence did these ships have on operations or warship design?

Aside from getting to Malta at a critical time, there was nothing unique about them. But, perhaps instead of thinking about warships, what about the following:

EC2-S-C1 class victory ships. Couldn't have won the war without them. Literally.

T2 Tanker (actually a type T2-SE-A1). Without POL's that could be transported quickly and in quantity, the allied war effort is still born. And without them, the USN would not have perfected the at sea replenishment that accelerated the US advance through the Pacific.

How about the ungainly LST? Bring your tanks, heavy eqmt and other vehicles right up on the beach!


----------



## Watanbe (Jun 2, 2009)

Without knowing a huge amount about WW2 warships, I would put forth the convoy escort vessels that escorted the Russian convoys. That would have to be one of the worst jobs of WW2, in the worst weather, there mission of getting supplies through to Russia was essential to the war effort. When radar technology became readily available and the enigma codes were cracked they really had the German U-Boat force (essential to Germany's success in the war) on the back foot.


----------



## HerrKaleut (Jun 2, 2009)

just a small point but the Ohio did not carry USS status and was manned by a british crew who kept her afloat, she did'nt do it herself. (As with Breconshire who had a civilian crew)


----------



## Njaco (Jun 2, 2009)

Thanks Herr, I wasn't sure. My mistake.

I see your point Syscom. Knowing very little about warships in general, I was making a point for effort and not really design. Sorry.


----------



## Glider (Jun 2, 2009)

This might be of interest
http://www.usmm.org/malta.html


----------



## parsifal (Jun 2, 2009)

I disgree with the notion that the technology is the most significant issue determining the influence of a ship. The ship with the greatest influence as such is the merchant hull. All other ships were subservient to that basic mercantile technology. Since ships like the Ohio and the Breconshire were the most significant of their genre, it follows that they are the most influential ships of the war.

Trying to link influence to technology is akin to saying that the object of war is the fighting....not so....as Moltke pointed out, the object of war is the projection of national policy. If the national policy somehow requires that battles be lost, then that is what the military must aim to do. That uis seldom the object of the national interest, however it is wrong to suppose that the technology is the most influential aspect of the machine,,,,,it is the purpose of the machine that is the most influential


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 2, 2009)

parsifal said:


> I disgree with the notion that the technology is the most significant issue determining the influence of a ship. The ship with the greatest influence as such is the merchant hull. All other ships were subservient to that basic mercantile technology. Since ships like the Ohio and the Breconshire were the most significant of their genre, it follows that they are the most influential ships of the war.
> 
> Trying to link influence to technology is akin to saying that the object of war is the fighting....not so....as Moltke pointed out, the object of war is the projection of national policy. If the national policy somehow requires that battles be lost, then that is what the military must aim to do. That uis seldom the object of the national interest, however it is wrong to suppose that the technology is the most influential aspect of the machine,,,,,it is the purpose of the machine that is the most influential



And as Stalin is said to have mentioned "quantity has a quality all its own".

Thus, the most influential warship has to be the Essex class carriers. The most influential merchantman has to be the T2 type tanker, and the lowly LST as the most influential amphib vessel.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 2, 2009)

But you must go to the question posed by Syscom- What is the most influential ship by design or What is the most influential ship on course of events. I don't think you guys are wrong but, like me, maybe didn't have a handle on the question.


----------



## Glider (Jun 3, 2009)

Woring on the influential design approach the following are a first pass with one line as to the thinking behind them. There are many other options.

Aircraft Carrier - Hermes first purpose built carrier, first with island superstructure that included the funnel more or less unchanged today
Battleship - Queen Elisabeth first BB with the speed of the BC. Later as modified became the first BB with all DP secondary weapons.
Cruiser - C Class (WW1) first cruisers that had all the main guns on the centerline and of one calibre
Destroyer - Matsui - First destroyer with DP main weapons
Merchant Ship - Ocean Class this design was modified to fit US building practices and became the Liberty Ship design
Landing Ship - US LST Series
Landing Craft - LCT (1) from which all others were derived including the Japanese LCT's.
MTB - S Class


----------



## HerrKaleut (Jun 3, 2009)

I must protest Glider, the first purpose built Aircraft Carrier was the HOSHO Completed Dec. 1922. Hermes did'nt complete until July 1923.


----------



## Freebird (Jun 3, 2009)

HerrKaleut said:


> I must protest Glider, the first purpose built Aircraft Carrier was the HOSHO Completed Dec. 1922. Hermes did'nt complete until July 1923.



Although Hermes was designed first, it just took longer for the Brits to build {no surprise there... }




> {From Wiki} Hōshō was commissioned on 27 December 1922, thirteen months before the Royal Navy's first purpose-built carrier Hermes, which was designed before Hōshō. The Hōshō however was originally conceived as a mixed aircraft carrier and seaplane tender and only during construction was her design modified to a dedicated carrier. She was the first purpose-designed aircraft carrier, but not the first purpose-designed dedicated aircraft carrier. (See aircraft carrier for more on the type's history).
> 
> The Hosho was designed with the assistance of a British technical mission which provided broad details of the Hermes.


----------



## diddyriddick (Jun 3, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> But the Essex class carriers is the culmination of all of the years of prewar theory and experiences, with the 1942 experiences of the Pacific battles adopted into their designs.
> 
> .




That would make them the influenced not the influential.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 3, 2009)

diddyriddick said:


> That would make them the influenced not the influential.



No.

It was this class of ships that wrote the book on fast carrier operations using large task forces.

The three most important aspects of the ship were ability to absorb damage, a large airwing and a good C&C system (for its time) for operations.

And that was passed on to every subsequent class of carriers.

And when you consider that these carriers were still usefull in thr ASW role untill the late 60's, that just proves how good the basic design was.


----------



## comiso90 (Jun 3, 2009)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> I'm going with the grand old USS Missori BB-63.



A grand lady no doubt but why would the last of the Battleships be influential? it seems like an oxymoron.

The surrender was signed on her decks... so? That could have been done on a tug boat...
Her main task was shore bombardment and AA support... so?
She's a beautiful and very cool floating artillery platform but I'm curious to find out why she would be in contention for "Most Influential ship"

I love her too but "Most Influential? I dont see it:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/off-topic-misc/photos-share-18373.html

.


----------



## Glider (Jun 3, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> No.
> 
> It was this class of ships that wrote the book on fast carrier operations using large task forces.
> 
> ...



I think its fair to say that the book had been written before these ships were built, they were however designed to fill the need of the book, which does make them the influenced not the vessel did the influencing.

The experience in the use of the Yorktown and Lexington classes amongst others pointed the USN in the direction that they needed to go and the design of the Essex class reflected that experience.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 3, 2009)

Glider said:


> I think its fair to say that the book had been written before these ships were built, they were however designed to fill the need of the book, which does make them the influenced not the vessel did the influencing.
> 
> The experience in the use of the Yorktown and Lexington classes amongst others pointed the USN in the direction that they needed to go and the design of the Essex class reflected that experience.



But they alone combined everything into one platform, and were adaptable enough to be used for jet operations and 20 years of upgrades.

The other carrier classes just didnt reach their level of sophistication.

And the "book" couldnt have been written untill after the war started indicated what parts of the designs of other classes were good or bad.


----------



## Messy1 (Jun 3, 2009)

How did the Essex class influence the carriers that followed it? The Forrestals, Enterprise, and Nimitz? Surely they took something from the Essex classes I would bet.


----------



## Glider (Jun 3, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> But they alone combined everything into one platform, and were adaptable enough to be used for jet operations and 20 years of upgrades.
> 
> The other carrier classes just didnt reach their level of sophistication.
> 
> And the "book" couldnt have been written untill after the war started indicated what parts of the designs of other classes were good or bad.



What you say is partly right, they did form the basis of the post war fleet but they were in effect modified Yorktowns. It was the Yorktowns that were designed to incorporate the lessons learnt from operating the earlier larger and smaller carriers. The Essex built on the Yorktown so if you have to pick one for the USN I would go for the Yorktown.
A similar example for the RN would be the Ark Royal, for the Japanese the Soryu.


----------



## Waynos (Jun 3, 2009)

Not up on ships at all, so forgive me if I'm way off but I think the most influential aircraft carrier would be the first one to introduce angled decks and steam catapults, as the standard design for modern carriers wouldn't it? Did a WW2 carrier introduce these features? were they introduced on different ships first? And which would be the first ship to have them all?

Regarding the Essex class, syscom, they were not alone in combining everything into one platform and being adaptable enough to be used for jet operations and 20 years of upgrades. This description also fits the Royal Navy's Eagle and Victorious, both of these were modified with the improvements I mentioned earlier and the latter of which operated everything from the Swordfish to the Buccaneer. I don't know if there were others too but these sprang to mind when I read your comment.

The other carrier classes just didnt reach their level of sophistication.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 4, 2009)

Big E due to her contributions of holding the front line for the US in the Pacific.


----------



## HerrKaleut (Jun 4, 2009)

ah so, Glider. I thought we were talking of build and completion.

I must admit that I am confused as to the purpose of this thread. what exactly is meant by influence here. Are we talking of a ships influence on the course of events or on design progression. The war record of a ship is dependant purely on how that ship is used (and a lot of luck) OHIO and BRECONSHIRE have been mentioned as influential, why. They were bog standard examples of their type. Would the US carriers at midway have been so successful if the Japanese destroyer had not been seen and followed ?
An example of influence as I see it; Lexington and Saratoga would not have been built as carriers if the US Navy dept.had not been shown the plans of HMS Hood which were greatly advanced on US designs for the class of 6 Battlecruisers that Lexington and Saratoga were of. So therefore HMS Hood influenced US carrier design. I also notice that few british carriers are mentioned as being influential so (national pride demands it) .......steam catapult, angled flight deck, armoured flight deck, mirror landing system and (I think, but stand to be corrected) arresterwire. 

I would also like to nominate as an influential vessel Parsons TURBINIA..self explanitory.


PS. In more than one of my reference books they give Ark Royal superiorty over Yorktown in all but speed.


----------



## Amsel (Jun 4, 2009)

I am sure that you aren't the only one unsure of the purpose of this thread, but I believe the OP explains it. 


> what individual ship in WW2 in all the combatant's navies had the most influential and illustrious war record.


From OP


----------



## Glider (Jun 4, 2009)

HerrKaleut said:


> ah so, Glider. I thought we were talking of build and completion..



Certainly could be but I was looking at design as its that that influences other ships..


> I must admit that I am confused as to the purpose of this thread. what exactly is meant by influence here. Are we talking of a ships influence on the course of events or on design progression. The war record of a ship is dependant purely on how that ship is used (and a lot of luck) OHIO and BRECONSHIRE have been mentioned as influential, why. They were bog standard examples of their type. Would the US carriers at midway have been so successful if the Japanese destroyer had not been seen and followed ?.


 The war record of a ship has little influence on the design of other ships and I believe we need to be careful about the influence of a design and the influence of an idea. This will become apparent later.


> An example of influence as I see it; Lexington and Saratoga would not have been built as carriers if the US Navy dept.had not been shown the plans of HMS Hood which were greatly advanced on US designs for the class of 6 Battlecruisers that Lexington and Saratoga were of. So therefore HMS Hood influenced US carrier design. I also notice that few british carriers are mentioned as being influential.


My choice was Hermes as British as you get, my comment about the Essex Class was in responce to a question from Syscom


> so (national pride demands it) .......steam catapult, angled flight deck, armoured flight deck, mirror landing system and (I think, but stand to be corrected) arresterwire. .


These were ideas or inventions. Steam Catapult and armoured deck were both on british ships first but the steam catapult didn't change the design of the ship, no more than the development of radar. As for the armoured deck it did influence the design of carriers but little more than the beefing up of the deck to take the weight of new aircraft. 
As for the angled flight deck this was a british idea but was first installed on an American carrier, so who did the influencing the idea (British) or the carrier (American) it was first installed on?


> I would also like to nominate as an influential vessel Parsons TURBINIA..self explanitory..


A good choice


----------



## HerrKaleut (Jun 4, 2009)

Glider, valid and acceptable points. I would argue that , re; angled flight deck, the design of the carrier was influenced by the invention. It couldnt have been the other way round.


----------



## mlsco (Jun 7, 2009)

I will cynically suggest the Prince of Wales and Repulse.

By going down rapidly in the face of an undefended air attack early during the war, they clearly demonstrated the end of the battleship era. I'll cite as evidence the tonnage of BB's versus CV's built from 1942 to 1945.

We can argue endlessly about whether Yorktown-class vessels or Essex-class vessels were more influential on further ship designs, but the basic question of what should be built in the first place seems more important to me.


----------



## comiso90 (Jun 7, 2009)

mlsco said:


> I will cynically suggest the Prince of Wales and Repulse.
> 
> By going down rapidly in the face of an undefended air attack early during the war, they clearly demonstrated the end of the battleship era. I'll cite as evidence the tonnage of BB's versus CV's built from 1942 to 1945.
> 
> We can argue endlessly about whether Yorktown-class vessels or Essex-class vessels were more influential on further ship designs, but the basic question of what should be built in the first place seems more important to me.



I agree but.. I'd take it a step further and nominate the Ostfriedland Air Power:Billy Mitchell Sinks the Ships

(which I mentioned in post #3 of this thread but nobody seemed to agree)

Keystone Bombers, Billy Mitchell, Ostfriedland

http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation history/coming of age/6.jpg
.


----------



## mlsco (Jun 8, 2009)

Excellent point. If people behaved rationally, Mitchell's demonstration should have been the end of the argument. Both then and now, though, it seems the idea did not take immediately. The USN clearly didn't get it until the war began.

Maybe Pearl Harbor, more than just the loss of a couple of additional isolated RN ships, finally drove home the point. It certainly yielded, from a practical point of view, a real reliance on and interest in carriers since there was little else left of the Pacific Fleet.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 8, 2009)

On the day of Pearl Harbor, the USN had 8 Aircraft Carriers and another 8 being built. I'm pretty sure they had gotten the pic of what was to come.


----------



## trackend (Jun 8, 2009)

Most influential ship I cant say but IMO the most influential class for me was a merchantman the unsurpassed Liberty ship 
US design and productivity at its best.


----------



## HerrKaleut (Jun 8, 2009)

IMO, all that Mitchell proved was that a ship could be sunk from the air....provided it was at anchor and there was no AA fire.

Surely the IOWAs were not designed for shore bombardment but as fast carrier escorts.


----------



## Glider (Jun 8, 2009)

HerrKaleut said:


> IMO, all that Mitchell proved was that a ship could be sunk from the air....provided it was at anchor and there was no AA fire.



And the watertight doors and hatches were left open, that there wasn't any crew for damage controls and that the bombing was allowed to continue long after it was due to finish.

Remember that this was contventional bombing.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 8, 2009)

It was also extremely controlled. The aircraft were told what kind of bombs they could use, where to drop them, and had a very specific time frame to do it on. Severtimes the brass instructed the aircraft to stop during it test.


----------



## mlsco (Jun 8, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> On the day of Pearl Harbor, the USN had 8 Aircraft Carriers and another 8 being built. I'm pretty sure they had gotten the pic of what was to come.



Interesting discussion. 

I may be doing revisionist thinking, Viking, but another way of looking at this is: "you are what you build." From April, 1936 through December 1941, the Navy laid down 9 battleships (BB55-63) but only 5 carriers (CV7-11; the new Yorktown and Intrepid made it in a week before Pearl Harbor). And I'm not counting CVL's that were converted during 1942 from cruisers. That says to me that the brass was still not convinced of carrier supremacy. 

All the numbers are somewhat distorted by the Washington naval treaty, which limited capital ship tonnage from 1921 until its expiration at the end of 1936. The fact that the Navy built carriers during the 1920's came from the fact that they had only the Langley at the beginning and were allowed to convert two battlecruisers already under construction that would have been scrapped if not modified. If you have the choice of building ships or not building ships, the answer is pretty easy: I'd vote for anything I could have.

On the other hand, you might reasonably argue that all the BB's in the fleet were getting old during the late 30's and were therefore a priority since there were already relatively new fleet carriers. I'd argue back the service was mostly still controlled by people who felt that "nothing says Navy like a battleship that weighs twice what a boat of an unproved class does" and that "we still have to be prepared to refight Jutland".


----------



## comiso90 (Jun 8, 2009)

HerrKaleut said:


> IMO, all that Mitchell proved was that a ship could be sunk from the air....provided it was at anchor and there was no AA fire.
> 
> .



Yes..

So? many thought it couldn't be done at all.

That was a huge feat at the time. Naval Aviation was only a few years old and the battleship had been the ultimate war machine since the days of trireme. Many people needed to be convinced that a kite made of canvas, wood and wire could sink an iron armored veteran of Jutland.

Yes it was staged
yes the water tight doors were open
yes it took several passes
...irrelevant

An $800 dollar kite sent a million dollar monolithic symbol of military power to the bottom (i'm guessing at the prices). Before that demonstration, the only thing that could sink a BB was another BB and it's supporting vessels.

Quite a benchmark in human history.



.


----------



## Glider (Jun 8, 2009)

comiso90 said:


> Yes..
> 
> So? many thought it couldn't be done at all.
> 
> ...



I would be willing to bet a penny to a pound that a dozen 1918 Cuckoo's would have done the job in a fraction of the time it took the USAAF. 
Had WW1 continued for another few months plans were in place to attack the High Seas Fleet with carrier based torpedo bombers. Training IIRC had started, then a much more valuble lesson would have been learnt, ie. bombs let in air and torpedo's water.

A realistic lesson would also have demolished the idea that high level bombers were effective against naval vessels, a lesson almost all nations had to relearn the hard way in WW2. In this manner the lesson of Mitchells bombing was wrong. A totally unrealistic test resulted in a belief that was totally wrong and as a benchmark in history, it was fatally flawed.


----------



## comiso90 (Jun 8, 2009)

Glider said:


> I would be willing to bet a penny to a pound that a dozen 1918 Cuckoo's would have done the job in a fraction of the time it took the USAAF.
> Had WW1 continued for another few months plans were in place to attack the High Seas Fleet with carrier based torpedo bombers. Training IIRC had started, then a much more valuble lesson would have been learnt, ie. bombs let in air and torpedo's water.
> 
> A realistic lesson would also have demolished the idea that high level bombers were effective against naval vessels, a lesson almost all nations had to relearn the hard way in WW2. In this manner the lesson of Mitchells bombing was wrong. A totally unrealistic test resulted in a belief that was totally wrong and as a benchmark in history, it was fatally flawed.



It was a demonstration.. and experiment... unrealistic yes.... It was not meant to be a tactical exercise-- it was a demonstration. It was not a "How too" but rather a "What happens if..."

You could easily argue that although the ship was sunk, the fact that it proved difficult demonstrated the need for aircraft that could deliver a payload with more energy and accuracy. This demonstration emphasized the need for dive bombers.

Lessons were gleaned from the failures perhaps more than the success. 

I never said it was a brilliant example of how to sink a BB.. i acknowledged that there were flaws.

Again.. dont think with a 21st century perspective. At the time, BB's were nearly invincible.

When a wood and canvas flying machine demonstrates it is capable of sinking a BB a significant benchmark has been established. The only fatal flaw would be interpreting the significance in the wrong context.

.


----------



## mlsco (Jun 8, 2009)

Glider said:


> ... In this manner the lesson of Mitchells bombing was wrong. A totally unrealistic test resulted in a belief that was totally wrong and as a benchmark in history, it was fatally flawed.



I'd argue this was not a benchmark, but rather a landmark proof of concept showing something small and really cheap that flies can trump size and complexity of something huge that floats. 

Agreed, learning how to do it effectively with conventional weapons required a lot more work, time, and lives. That's in part why the Prince of Wales example makes some sense. Showing that unprotected capital vessels at sea under wartime conditions were completely vulnerable to air attack was also a big event, just not the very first.


----------



## HerrKaleut (Jun 8, 2009)

I'm going to stick a fly in the ointment Everyone goes on about big ships. I have previously mentioned TURBINIA and now I shall throw in the first world war U-9 and her sinking of the ABIKOUR, HOGUE and CRESSY thereby demonstrating just how efficient a sub could be and how that influenced the design of future warships.!


Misco; I rather think the lesson was delivered at Toranto before it was at Pearl.


----------



## Messy1 (Jun 8, 2009)

HerrKaleut said:


> I'm going to stick a fly in the ointment Everyone goes on about big ships. I have previously mentioned TURBINIA and now I shall throw in the first world war U-9 and her sinking of the ABIKOUR, HOGUE and CRESSY thereby demonstrating just how efficient a sub could be and how that influenced the design of future warships.!
> 
> 
> Misco; I rather think the lesson was delivered at Toranto before it was at Pearl.



That is a valid and great point HK! Submarines had a huge effect on both World Wars, and changed the rules of warfare when the nuclear boats came out.


----------



## Amsel (Jun 8, 2009)

Subsurface warfare has definantly evolved into a class of its own. Submarines are the ultimate deterrant for any nation who is anywhere near the ocean. The power that this small vessel can behold is apocolyptic.


----------



## Messy1 (Jun 8, 2009)

I have read that during the Cold War, the American nuclear sub force was a major deterrent to war with the USSR.


----------



## comiso90 (Jun 8, 2009)

Messy1 said:


> I have read that the Cold War, the American nuclear sub force was a major deterrent to war with the USSR.



I suppose the deterring Armageddon may be considered "influential"!


.


----------



## Amsel (Jun 8, 2009)

Messy1 said:


> I have read that the Cold War, the American nuclear sub force was a major deterrent to war with the USSR.


I truly believe that and vice versa. Tom Clancey did as well with his excellent book-The Hunt for Red October.


----------



## HerrKaleut (Jun 8, 2009)

The thing that I find amusing is that the british admiralty at first objected to the use of submarines because they were "Damned un-English" Also that in both wars, the hun used U-boats,which were dark and evil and thoroughly nasty things who's crews were villanous, darsterdly murderous pirates whereas the Royal Navy used submarines which were good and wonderfull, a completely different thing, and who's crews were gentlemen of the sea. It is also worth noting that Doenitz and Co. stood trial for unrestrictedU-boat warfare, Yet the US navy's unrestricted submarine warfare in the pacific was considered quite reasonable. 

I know its not really anything to do with how a ship is influential, I just thought I'd mention it.


----------



## Messy1 (Jun 8, 2009)

Amsel said:


> I truly believe that and vice versa. Tom Clancey did as well with his excellent book-The Hunt for Red October.



I am sure you are right Amsel! I think overall the US held the advantage throughout most of the Cold War, with a few exceptions of some of the newer russian subs the US subs were usually quieter, safer, and more technologically advanced.


----------



## HerrKaleut (Jun 8, 2009)

So to return to the thread, The Turbinia must enter the arena. (No turbines, no nuclear subs)......I'm going to regret this aren't I????


----------



## renrich (Jun 10, 2009)

HK, as to your observation about the different perceptions of US and German sub warfare, I believe you will find that, during Doenitz's trial at Nuremberg, Admiral Nimitz, of the USN, testified that the US employed the same tactics in the PTO that Germany did in the ETO. Perhaps Nimitz felt a kinship with Doenitz because they were both of German extraction and both had names that ended in Z. LOL


----------



## trackend (Jun 10, 2009)

I n 1939 the British had far more subs than the Germans, at that moment in time I can think of no other tactics that subs could be employed for other than to blockade and attack commerce. The British would have done exactly the same as everyone else but it was not a target rich enviroment for them.


----------



## Yerger (Jun 17, 2009)

Gato class subs


----------



## Njaco (Jun 17, 2009)

renrich said:


> HK, as to your observation about the different perceptions of US and German sub warfare, I believe you will find that, during Doenitz's trial at Nuremberg, Admiral Nimitz, of the USN, testified that the US employed the same tactics in the PTO that Germany did in the ETO. Perhaps Nimitz felt a kinship with Doenitz because they were both of German extraction and both had names that ended in Z. LOL



Good one, Ren!


----------



## stug3 (Feb 25, 2013)

The quantity of Liberty Ships America was able to produce negated any influence of U Boats on the outcome of the war.

Capacity of One Liberty Ship Brochure 1943


----------



## parsifal (Feb 25, 2013)

Very cool


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 25, 2013)

I agree. very cool!


----------



## fastmongrel (Feb 25, 2013)

HMS Bulldog a boarding team from Bulldog boarded U110 and captured an Enigma set but much more importantly the code books and documentation that went with it that helped Bletchley Park to crack the U Boat codes.

Without that documentation enigma might not have been cracked and the Battle of the Atlantic might have been considerably bloodier and delayed D Day.

HMS Bulldog (H91) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

German submarine U-110 (1940) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## vinnye (Feb 26, 2013)

Good call Fastmongrel - having the ability to read your opponents plans as quickly as they can is a definite advantage!

I would vote Enterprise for a USN ship - she was everywhere wasn' t she?
An a hard choice between Illustious and Warspite. With Illustrious getting the nod.
The Taranyo raid showed the balance of power had gone to airpower rather than gunfire. The IJN learned a lot from that raid, which they used to the USN's cost !


----------



## vikingBerserker (Feb 26, 2013)

I'm going old school and saying the CSS Hunley, it showed the potential use of subs in warfare.


----------



## Glider (Feb 26, 2013)

HerrKaleut said:


> So to return to the thread, The Turbinia must enter the arena. (No turbines, no nuclear subs)......I'm going to regret this aren't I????



I think its a great idea


----------



## Juha (Feb 26, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> HMS Bulldog a boarding team from Bulldog boarded U110 and captured an Enigma set but much more importantly the code books and documentation that went with it that helped Bletchley Park to crack the U Boat codes.
> 
> Without that documentation enigma might not have been cracked and the Battle of the Atlantic might have been considerably bloodier and delayed D Day.
> 
> ...



This line of thinking also opens the way to name HMS Petard as one of the most influential ships thanks to sinking of U-559, but IMHO Turbinia might still take the title.

Juha


----------



## vinnye (Feb 27, 2013)

HMS Petard is the only allied ship to sink submarines from Germany, Italy and Japan. Not a bad effort for a little ship.
Finding an enigma machine and code books was a big bonus!


----------



## mike siggins (Mar 2, 2013)

i would think sea raider atlantis needs a mention also the graff spee


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 10, 2013)

HMS _Furious_; the very first true aircraft carrier. Embarked the first carrier based interceptor squadron 'F' Sqn, comprising Sopwith Pups in 1917. This unit's commanding officer was Sqn Cdr Edwin Harris Dunning, who made history as the first airman to land an aeroplane on the deck of a carrier on 2 August 1917. From _Furious_ the first successful aircraft carrier launched air strike in history was launched, when seven Sopwith 2F1 Camels attacked the airship sheds at Tondern, destroying the sheds and the airships within, on 18 July 1918. _Furious_ also pioneered aircraft arrestor systems and some truly bizarre ideas were tested aboard her after deck, which resulted in some interesting crash scenarios.

As for carrier battle groups; again, the Royal Navy did this first with her seaplane tenders carrying out anti-Zeppelin patrols off the German coast armed with Sopwith Pups and accompanied by cruisers and destroyers in support.

I also put forward HMS _Argus_, the very first 'flat-top' carrier (_Furious_' flight deck was built around its superstructure; the ship was designed as a 'Large Light Cruiser' with a single 18.1 inch gun in each turret fore and aft, although she was launched with a flying off deck on her bow in place of the forward turret. At the time Dunning made his landings the aft turret was still fitted and as a result of his landings the ship was further modified with a landing deck aft.). _Argus_ was commissioned in September 1918 and in mid October the very first aircraft carrier based torpedo squadron, 185 Sqn equipped with Sopwith Cuckoos was formed at RAF East Fortune and declared operational aboard the carrier. _Argus_ also pioneered the fixed island superstructure to one side of the flight deck, although hers was a dummy, aircraft practised take offs with it - she was not built with one.

Both these ships pioneered aircraft carrier operations and therefore had profound influence on the conduct of WW2. Ironically both ships also survived WW2, out-living their contemporaries, _Hermes_, _Hosho_ etc, only to be unceremoniously scrapped post war.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 11, 2013)

someone should read through this thread and shortlist the classes and inidvidua ships, we could then put together a poll to vote on the issue. who wants to volunteer?????


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 11, 2013)

We seem to have to different criteria going.

Which ship had the most influence on the ships after it, design, architecture or propulsion?

Which individual ship had the most influence on the war. Capturing code machines etc. 

Which ship created the most havoc or needed the most resources to track down or put out of action.


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 12, 2013)

yep, I guess _Furious_ and _Argus_' WW2 records were not as illustrious as many - even _Illustrious_', but _Furious' _at least was in WW1! Influential? Without a doubt.

_Warspite_ had a pretty damn good war, even though it had been put out of action by a glide bomb; was in the Norwegian campaign, Meditteranean at Matapan, Salerno and at D-Day... Should have preserved her.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 12, 2013)

You might say that Illustrious had an illustrious career, but Furious was furious in her war(s) (poor attempt at humour0....


----------



## N4521U (Mar 12, 2013)

The Yellow Submarine??
Just thought I'd ask.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 12, 2013)

In a way, I guess....how many people lost their virginity listening to that song I wonder


----------



## fastmongrel (Mar 12, 2013)

parsifal said:


> In a way, I guess....how many people lost their virginity listening to that song I wonder



If you were listening to a song when you lost your virginity you were doing it wrong or she/he was.


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 12, 2013)

You mean to say you _didn't_ have "Rockin' all over the world" by Status Quo on the car stereo of your cousin's beat up old Camaro when you lost yours, Mongrel?


----------



## N4521U (Mar 12, 2013)

There were no Cameros when I lost mine.


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 12, 2013)

They had Status Quo though, right, or was it Bill Hailey and the Comets?


----------



## parsifal (Mar 12, 2013)

I never lost mine....I sold it for a tidy profit....


----------



## N4521U (Mar 13, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> They had Status Quo though, right, or was it Bill Hailey and the Comets?



1961....... who knows what was playing then.


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 13, 2013)

1961? Elvis released Blue Hawaii, Ben E King released his number one smash Stand by Me (Fantastic track) and Chubby Checker did the twist again... Just for tasters.


----------



## N4521U (Mar 13, 2013)

My God, am I that friggin old?????????????????????????????????????????


----------



## stug3 (Apr 3, 2013)

A Liberty Ship in an Arctic convoy bound for Russia.


----------



## stug3 (Jul 10, 2013)

British troops in a Landing Craft Assault (LCA), Sicily, 9 July 1943. 






American soldiers drive a US army scout car from a landing craft onto the beach at Licata, Sicily. 






Men of the Highland Division are up to their waists in water unloading stores from LCTs, Sicily July 1943


----------



## pattle (Jul 10, 2013)

If we are talking about influential as meaning as having had influence over events rather than having a had direct hand in events then my vote goes for HMS Illustrious as it was the Taranto raid that opened Japanese eyes to the possibility of knocking out the American fleet while in harbour.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 11, 2013)

I am the first to give credit to Illustrious for its "illustrious" wartime service. And certainly Taranto had its effect on Japanese thinking. But the Japanese had always held to the notion of delivering a prewar preemptive strike since at least 1895. Theyt certainly had used a surprise attack at Poty Arthut and against the Chinese in thair conquests of Formosa...


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 11, 2013)

Glad someone mentioned HMS Bulldog and the capture of the Enigma codes from U110. Undoubtedly of huge influence, albeit temporarily as code books were changed over time.

Just to throw a completely different idea out there - how about the German auxiliary raider _Atlantis_? In Nov 40 she captured the British ship _Automedon_ which carried the complete order of battle for the British in the Far East and showed just how weak the defences in Singapore actually were. 

Germany duly passed that intelligence to Tokyo and it undoubtedly had a huge impact on Japan's decision to embark on the southern strategy once the American trade embargo against Japan started to bite in July 1941. With British weakeness in the Far East clearly identified, Japan had confidence in the ability to embark on their aggression against French Indochina, Siam, Malaya, Singapore, Burma and the Dutch East Indies.

In addition, with the southern strategy identified as the main axis of effort for Japan, the need to limit the influence of America's Pacific Fleet and protect the route from Japan to the Gulf of Thailand led to the attack on Pearl Harbor and the invasion of the Philippines.

Overall, quite an impact methinks!


----------



## pattle (Jul 11, 2013)

How about the USS Sutton as this was the ship that the u boat carrying uranium from Germany to Japan surrendered to in 1945 after the German surrender. I know it was just luck on the part of the USS Sutton that it happened to be in the right place at the right time and there was no struggle involved but I believe the capture of the uranium was very significant.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 11, 2013)

I don't think Japan had the ability to achieve anything substantive with the uranium and certainly lacked a means of delivering a weapon. Therefore impact is minimal, IMHO.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 11, 2013)

buffnut453 said:


> I don't think Japan had the ability to achieve anything substantive with the uranium and certainly lacked a means of delivering a weapon. Therefore impact is minimal, IMHO.



There was zero possibility (no pun intended) of Japan acquiring the bomb, even with all the processed uranium in the world.

However I dont agree that they lacked the delivery systems. A nuclear carrying suicide aircraft would have the ability to destroy an entire fleet, even if it missed. What sort of effect would that have on the USN offensive capability???


----------



## pattle (Jul 11, 2013)

parsifal said:


> There was zero possibility (no pun intended) of Japan acquiring the bomb, even with all the processed uranium in the world.
> 
> However I dont agree that they lacked the delivery systems. A nuclear carrying suicide aircraft would have the ability to destroy an entire fleet, even if it missed. What sort of effect would that have on the USN offensive capability???


You have got hold of the wrong end of the stick here I'm afraid. I wasn't suggesting that the Japanese would have been able to produce atomic weapons if they had received the uranium shipment, what I was referring to was that the U.S. needed the uranium for it's own use.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 11, 2013)

ah, I understand. Even so, now that you have very kindly clarified, it gets down to how impportant the bomb was to extracting the Japanese unconditional surrender. Conventional theory is that it was critical. Modern revisioniust histories are that it was less important to the Soviet invasion. Japanese records as to why unconditional surrender was accepted are unclear.

My view is that the bomb hastened their acceptance, but with or without the bomb, the Japanese were going to surrender anyway. The bomb was a political weapon more than anything....expectations were that in the postwar environment it would act as a great leveller....cancelling the advatages of the huge red army presence in Central and eastern Europe. In reality it acted to achieve an uneasy equilibrium for 45 years


----------



## razor1uk (Jul 12, 2013)

As far as I am led to believe, the Japanese had and tested a bomb in what would be North Korean East Coast. As to weither or not they had enough material for a 2nd, or a partially finished 'dirty' one is debatable since the Soviets stripped anything manmade and useful out of anywhere their forces went then.
The unconditional surrender was apparently instigated by Hirohito to break the deadlock between the politicians and the control clique of the militaries, although its just as likely or unlikely that if Gensai Bakudan was used, that it was noticed and that was a factor in surrender negotiation - to stop the control clique (military fundamentalists) revolting and if resourceful enough, in using spreading their collective war knowledge for paramilitary insurrection against the invasion/garrisoning, 'allied' Japanese forces especially against government departments, staffs officials; something that wasn't new to them at all.

Definitely after the destruction of the Imperial Russian Eastern Fleet in around Port Arthur 'The Battle of Tsushima' in 1905, the subsequent ceding of that part of the Dalian Peninsular to Japan, and the Soviets view of Japans land based weakness after Khalin Gol/Nomahan, the Soviets after their Western 'Patriotic' battles and losses that hardened them to a edge stronger than the blade of a traditional Japanese sword (in their own eyes, I am hypothesising..) knew they could probably take Manchukuo quickly, and Japan with some difficulty too. 
If this a reasonable theory, then its just as reasonable perhaps to think those in the control clique knew this too; hence why for many things they actively covered many failures defeats up and buried their collective heads in the sand.


----------



## pattle (Jul 12, 2013)

What with everything that was happening around them the Japanese must have been able to work out that they had lost the war, and yes any country in it's right mind would much sooner surrender to the Americans than the Russians. But you have to remember that the Japanese didn't know how many atomic bombs the Americans had access to. Until the American capture of the shipment of uranium from Germany the Americans were almost out of the stuff. I don't know any of this for a fact of course as historians argue over how much uranium the Americans had and also whether or not the captured German uranium could be used for making a bomb.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 12, 2013)

pattle said:


> What with everything that was happening around them the Japanese must have been able to work out that they had lost the war, and yes any country in it's right mind would much sooner surrender to the Americans than the Russians. But you have to remember that the Japanese didn't know how many atomic bombs the Americans had access to. Until the American capture of the shipment of uranium from Germany the Americans were almost out of the stuff. I don't know any of this for a fact of course as historians argue over how much uranium the Americans had and also whether or not the captured German uranium could be used for making a bomb.



The majority of the japanese leadership had realised they had lost the war from at least June 1944. Many had realized that much earlier. a few never wanted to go to war with the Americans because they knoew they couldnt win. 

Everything From June 1944 to the surrender was about securing better terms of peace. As 1944 drew into 1945 there were several changes in the leadership, and Japanese terms for surrender became less and less. From just before okinawa onward, they really only had two demands for peace....that the person of the empereor, his position, and his family be respected. They got that. The second was that foreign forces remain outside of the home islands. That was not achieved.

Until the Russians acytually attacked, the japanese were hopeful of Soviet sympathies. They, like the Germans before them had hoped for the break up of the grand alliance ranged against them. The Japanese was different to that of the Germans, however....they had not been at war with the Russians since 1939, and actually hoped for the Russians to diplomatically side with them. They certainly did not prefer the Americans as victors over the Russians. they loathed the Americans. They didnt want any nations to occupy Japan, so in that regard there was no preference. 

Ive never heard that the US relied on German enriched uranium for their bombs. By September that 6 bombs, byt the end of the year that nearly 20. By the following year they had 150 bombs, so in my opinion the Americans were not at all reliant on captured supplies for their atomic program. Ill concede the point if youve got some evidence to show otherwise, but it just doesnt ring true at all to me.


----------



## pattle (Jul 12, 2013)

Well amongst other things we will probably never know for sure how much uranium the Americans had and I don't want to get into a long discussion over it. The Japanese may well have loathed the Americans but the Russians were they're traditional enemies. I don't think there was ever a people (the Japanese included) that would have been gormless enough to choose occupation by Russians over occupation by the Americans or any other English speaking nation for that matter, the Germans certainly didn't. If Japan had of been occupied by the Russians it would have been bled to death and ended up like North Korea or some other socially retarded state, the Japanese would have known that as well as anyone.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 12, 2013)

parsifal said:


> However I dont agree that they lacked the delivery systems. A nuclear carrying suicide aircraft would have the ability to destroy an entire fleet, even if it missed. What sort of effect would that have on the USN offensive capability???



If they managed to get to the very centre of a carrier battle group then maybe. However, to get to that central point, the aircraft would have to traverse 17 miles of surrounding defences. Given the likely number of nuclear weapons that Japan might have been able to produce (bear in mind America's effort just to get 2 weapons ready), I think the odds of success were remote to zero.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 12, 2013)

None of that matter to the japanese. For most it was finding a way to protect the empereror, whom the average Japanese soldier thought was a living God. The Japanese had fought the Russians, for sure in the moderen times, but their revulsion of the west was much older and deeper.

These are cultural or matters of psyche. if you want to take a look at this issue from a juxtaposition of strictly western persona (a fundamentally wrong starting point if you want to undertstand the Japanese reactions), the traditional enemy was not Russia at all, it was China. That Japan had gone to war with Russia at all, both in 1905 and 1939, it was to show the Russians that it was they, the Japanese that were in control in China, and that they, the Japanese had the dominant sphere of influence over the region. This was for cultural economic and military reasons... They went to war with the west for the same reasons. In japanese eyes, they were applying a japan centric version of the Monroe doctrine. US free market demands for Open door policy in China were seen as US economic imperialism....something the Japanese were quite willing to risk war over. To the Japanese western dominance in the far east had to be stopped, at all costs. Where they went wrong was that they believed it their rightful destiny to take the leadership role in East Asia...effectively replacing western imperialism with their own. but the fact that they at least partially read the mood of the region correctly can be seen by the more or less imediate ousting of the returning western colonialist powers by the rising nationalist movements in East Asia. That tide was so strong that it forced even the Russians out of the region almost immediately. The Americans were more reluctant to accept that status quo, not really relinquishing their notion that the pacific was a US controled lake until after Vietnam.

Certainly if the Russians had occupied the home islands, they would have raped and pillaged the place the same as eastren europe, That didnt matter to the Japanese....its what they expected the west to do as well. Henry Morgantheu (I think) had wanted to reduce the Axis powers to backward agrarian states......it wasnt until the post war period that US poured money into the reconstruction, mostly with a view to making these countries client econoimic states. Further down the track, Japan, Germany and then eventually in the modern era, China, became and overtook the US as the primary economic centres of the world....rivals and competitirs to the US dominance....the end of the Pax America. 

If the Japanese had not viewed China as their area of vital interest, they would have acceded US pre-war ultimatum and avoided the embargoes that drove them to war. There were element of the Kwantung Army that favoured war with Russia, but these guys were never in the majority and Russia was viewed as just another rival, even less significant than the Americans.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 13, 2013)

buffnut453 said:


> If they managed to get to the very centre of a carrier battle group then maybe. However, to get to that central point, the aircraft would have to traverse 17 miles of surrounding defences. Given the likely number of nuclear weapons that Japan might have been able to produce (bear in mind America's effort just to get 2 weapons ready), I think the odds of success were remote to zero.



We would need to analyse the number or proportions of suicide attacks that resched the outer rings of a given task force. I forgett how many kamikazes were expended, I know that about 240 ships were sunk or seriously damaged. I keep believing that the success rate was around 40%, for those aircraft that made it to the inner screen. Which would suggest, that of the 2000 or so Kamikazes actually expended, maybe 4-500 got past the CAP. Thats not remote to zero, more like 20-25%.

Put a nuclear device in the hands of an experience pilot, at the centre of your attack group, and you are probably ooking at odds of 60-70% success. a guess, I concede, but certainly not implausible.

We might get a better idea of how effective a nuclear strike on a fleet and how close to the aiming point they needed to get, by looking at the test results of the postwar test at Bikini


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 13, 2013)

I was going from the damage radii at Hiroshima which was wider than Nagasaki due to the flatter terrain of the former (which I thought was more applicable to the maritime environment).

I agree that a swarm in which one aircraft was carrying a nuke might be successful but it's a real crap-shoot as to whether the nuke aircraft made it through or not...and even then the spread of vessels in a battle group is still considerable. The weapon might destroy some but I think it highly unlikely that it would neutralize the threat of the battle group...and that would be just one battle group when the USN and, later, the RN had more than one.


----------



## pattle (Jul 13, 2013)

And what type of aircraft would have been used for this suicide attack? It would have had to of been a pretty large and therefor slow aircraft to carry an atomic bomb in which case it would have been a sitting duck. I don't see why it would need to be a kamikaze attack either as pin point accuracy was not required.


----------



## Glider (Jul 13, 2013)

Forget an aircraft, I would put it in a Sub, get as close as possible to a major US city surface and blow it.


----------



## N4521U (Jul 14, 2013)

Of course it would be the USS Yorktown, CV-5, because when CV-10 showed up the Japanese thought 5 was brought back from the grave!


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 14, 2013)

parsifal said:


> We would need to analyse the number or proportions of suicide attacks that resched the outer rings of a given task force.



Not only that, we'd need to determine what proportion of those were bombers capable of carrying a nuke. Many of the successful kamikaze missions were flown in fighters or lighter bombers which, presumably, were harder to hit than a large aircraft like the G4M.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 14, 2013)

We have to approach this in the understanding that its complete hypothetical. it never happened, neither was it ever going to happen. So, any consideration of this alternative history has to be on that understanding.

But let me try and paint some sort of picture that at least gives this hypothetical some air of plausibility.

Lets say the Japanese are able to achieve one sided victories at Coral Sea and Midway. they capture Port Moresby, Noumea and push onto Fiji, as planned. Midway is captured, and the USN watched closely. There are several inculive battles in 1942-3. Equipment wise the IJN is able to develop a replacement for the Zero, it protects its merchant fleet better, fortifies its outer defences and undertakes some further exapansions and consiolidation of its fleet. Operations in China are somewhat more successful, and the British pushed out of Burma. In summary, the Japanese are successful in their 1942 objectives, and are given maybe 2 year respite to prepre their defences. 

Say the Germans develop nuclear weapons, and in typical German style are able to produce more compact, light versions of e bomb for their twin engined bombers. None of that is imlausible. It means the final US drives will be occurring in 1947-8, rather than 1945, against Japanese airforces far more experienced, and far better equipped. I dont think it impausible, for example, for the Japanese to develop the Kikka Jet a/c as a bomber, not dis-similar to the AR-234, or its four engined equivalent. Could the USN 1947 era aircraft cope with such aircraft. Doubtful. In 1949, when the USN went toi war in Korea, its aircraft were hard pressed deaing with the MIG-15. Granted, the US had virtually stopped carrier borne aircraft development post war, but we would likley see Bearcats on t5he carriers, fighting kikka style jet techs....

that would suggest to me that it might be a possibility for the Japanese to get a bomb over a US carrier TF. As I said, a complete hypothetica, no correct answer. im not even claiming this to be a likley outcome...its not, but was there any scenario that might see the japanese getting an atomic device over a USN Task Force. I think so....


----------



## bob44 (Jul 15, 2013)

parsifal said:


> We have to approach this in the understanding that its complete hypothetical. it never happened, neither was it ever going to happen. So, any consideration of this alternative history has to be on that understanding.
> 
> But let me try and paint some sort of picture that at least gives this hypothetical some air of plausibility.
> 
> ...





For the Japanese to take and occupy Port Moresby, Noumea, Fiji, they would have had to crush the US, British, Austrailian, New Zealand, ect. forces. Historically, look how hard the fighting was at and around Guadalcanal. The US Navy would not just sit back and watch Midway being built up by the Japanese. Not in Hawaii's back yard.

If the German's would have developed the "bomb" and used it, this would have changed the war entirely. The historic push to Berlin would not have mattered. An all out push to destroy Germany's nuclear weapons and a rush to develope them in the US and Russia would be the priority. 

But in my opinion, I have no evidence to support this, the Allies were well aware of Germany's nuclear and technical developments. And several key people in Germany; military, industry, government were putting a wrench into the works. Only my opinion.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 15, 2013)

More than anything, the battle in the Pacific was a battle of control of the oceans. to control the oceans, the battles in the air had to be won. To win in the air, carriers were the answer to successful operations, either offensive or defensive.

If the given is that the Japanese won hands down victories at both Coral Sea and Midway, the situation would have been very dire for the allies, whatever the fighting capabilities they may think their other forces possessed. It would see, the Japanese with 8 fleet carriers, and 4 Light Carriers, plus 5 escort carriers, versus (I think) 3 US fleet carriers, no light carriers and maybe 2 escort or transport carriers. The Japanese, in that scenario would have been in complete control...They could dictate where they would attack, in what strength, and when. Time would be achieved to retain and replace their losses, restore training standards, isolate areas and reduce the fighting capacities of isolated garrisons. There is nothing the US could do to stem that until and unless they built up their carriers again. 

In the same light, if the US had had more carriers in '42-3, they would have ended the war far more early than they actually did, or at least, reduced the Japanese to a point of impotence. Surrender might have taken more time, but the tenets for surrender would have been achieved.

As for Midway, yeah ive read the post war revisionist accounts that discount the Japanese fighting capabilities, but i prefer the US assessments of the time. If Japan had won the naval engagement at Midway, and been in a position to reduce the island defences unchallenged, they would have taken the place easily. Thereafter, ther is nothing (excpt subs), that the US could have done to stem the build up of Midway, without Carriers. Every three months or so, the Japanese would need to send in a re-supply convoy...thats not much opportunity for US subs to have much effect. if the US attempted to build a base closer, the Japanese would simply flatten it with their huge carrier advantage each time the US tried to build up forces to suppress Midway. Its would have been a terrible situation for the US to find itself in. Beatable, eventually, but still a huge advantage to the Japanese if they had won the carrier battles of 1942.


----------

