HMS Daring new AA warship

[Glider]

Its nice to see that we something that seems to be as good as the best again.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...avy02.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/02/ixhome.html

 

[MacArther]

But, does it have CIWS, that is the question.

 

[MichaelHenley]

Looks almost like a stealth warship, if you ask me. Is it?
And im glad the British are getting better at the whole shipbuilding thing too.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

getting better! we never got worse....

 

[plan_D]

Getting better? What a freakin' stupid comment, you moron. Britain has been at the forefront of ship building for centuries!

 

[syscom3]

Except for battleships, aircraft carriers, amphib ships and ro-ro ships.

 

[plan_D]

Battleships - Dreadnoughts instantly made every other warship obselete. Plus, the many battleships in the Imperial Ages that were just plain the best.

Aircraft Carriers - We invented them, and improved them. The vast majority of U.S Carrier technology came from Britain.

Amphib Ships - Who invented the Hovercraft?

Ro-Ro - There's really that much in it to decide, but Britain has built plenty in it's years.

In fact, you should have really just mentioned the Oil Tanker that was screwed up and wasn't straight. But ... too late.

 

[syscom3]

We invented the nuke carrier, you didnt. End of story.

The Yamato class, Bismark class and Iowa class BB's were superior to the RN designs

The USN/USMC wrote the book on amphib warfare and the specialised craft needed. Hovercraft? An interesting toy as compared to the LSD, LST, LCMP, LCI and Higgens boats.

And the Ro-Ro ships, that the USN helped to design revolutionized the transport of vehicles around the world (much to the chagrin of the US automakers)

 

[Glider]

We invented the nuke carrier, you didnt. End of story.

The Yamato class, Bismark class and Iowa class BB's were superior to the RN designs

The USN/USMC wrote the book on amphib warfare and the specialised craft needed. Hovercraft? An interesting toy as compared to the LSD, LST, LCMP, LCI and Higgens boats.

And the Ro-Ro ships, that the USN helped to design revolutionized the transport of vehicles around the world (much to the chagrin of the US automakers)

The only thing new about the Nuke Carrier was the engine. As Plan D says the majority of the design features were from UK designs,

The Yamato and Iowa were better than the UK pre war designs, Bismark is only a maybe and none were better than the Vanguard as all round warships.

LSD was an American design and a very good one, however the concept was based on the experience gained by the LSS, LSG and LSC vessels which were English conversions of various degrees of success. That said, the LSD was a quantum leap in this area.
On this topic it should be noted that the development post war of a Helicopter assault ship was an English idea.

The first LST's were British but we didn't have the production facilities to produce what was required and they were then built in large numbers by the USA as well as in the UK and Canada. So I don't think that the USA can claim credit for that.

Other specialist types that the UK Developed included
Landing ship Headquarters - with extra command and control equipment
Landing Ship Fighter Direction - Self explanatory
Landing Ship Emergency repairs - Again self explanatory.
I think I am right in saying that the USA used larger warships for some of these tasks but didn't have specialised vessels that the RN used.

As well as the above, the UK also had a large range of specialised smaller landing craft that the USA didn't have right, from dedicated AA landing craft and Gun support landing craft right down to floating bakeries.

The Higgins boat was a remarkable design and one used in large numbers by the RN.
The LCI equal in the RN was the LCA and that was in mass production in 1939 so I think we can cancel that one out.

So to sum up, to say that the USMC and USN wrote the book is not exactly fair or accurate. What is fair is to say that the RN wrote the first chapter and then both countries moved on together. It is fair to say that the USMC and the USN had the most experience in 1944/45 but that was inevitable

 

[syscom3]

Since we were doing most of the amphib operations in the world, its olny natural that our designs were superior as they were based on experience.

Plus Id like to point out that we didnt need the specialized dedicated AA landing craft because our superior carriers and superior aircraft made them pointless.

Landing ship Headquarters - we had more capable ships handle the C&C
Landing Ship Fighter Direction - for what?
Landing Ship Emergency repairs - we had more capable ships to handle that

Iowa was superior to the Vanguard!

 

[Glider]

'Since we were doing most of the amphib operations in the world, its olny natural that our designs were superior as they were based on experience'

A General statement backed up with no detail. Most of the Pacific operations took place after D Day so experience was gained in Europe. That said there were some major differences. In the Pacific the USA could guarantee air superiority and you were invading islands. For the landings in Europe we were invading a mainland and could not guarantee air superiority. Also In the Pacific the airpower came from Carriersm for D Day the air power came from the UK and the action in France was closer to the German forces.

'Plus Id like to point out that we didnt need the specialized dedicated AA landing craft because our superior carriers and superior aircraft made them pointless. '
As mentioned above, you have forgotten that for D Day there were no carriers and the supporting shipping was offshore, leaving the landing craft vulnerable. That is why we developed the AA Landing Craft.

The lack of Carriers in the area also meant that the invasion forces lacked the ability to control the aircraft close to the shore. That is why we developed specialist Fighter Direction shipping.

Had the Germans launched large air attacks then these ships would have been invaluble. They didn't which was good news for all concerned.

As for the Repair ships, actually you didn't have more cabable ships. The USN relied on the mother ships to patchup the landing craft but this was a secondary task to getting the troops ashore. The repair ship specialised in patching up the landing craft. Different approach for different navies. Later on in the Pacific the USN did have repair ships for this task.

 

[MichaelHenley]

Btw, like my question up top, is the Class 45 Destroyer a Stealth ship? from the photo in the link above, it most certainly looks the part.

 

[syscom3]

A General statement backed up with no detail. Most of the Pacific operations took place after D Day so experience was gained in Europe. That said there were some major differences. In the Pacific the USA could guarantee air superiority and you were invading islands. For the landings in Europe we were invading a mainland and could not guarantee air superiority. Also In the Pacific the airpower came from Carriersm for D Day the air power came from the UK and the action in France was closer to the German forces.

Ummm, I count at least 20 amphib operations in the Pacific prior to Jun 6 1944. It might shock you, but the invasions in the Central Solomons and in New Guinie were covered mostly by land based airpower. For the Sicily/Italy/Normandy operations, air superiority was guarenteed, and as events unfolded the Germans never seriously challanged any invasion.

I wonder if Leonards dad participated in any of the numerous invasions in 1942/43/44?

As mentioned above, you have forgotten that for D Day there were no carriers and the supporting shipping was offshore, leaving the landing craft vulnerable. That is why we developed the AA Landing Craft.

Why have air craft carriers in the confines of the channel when you had the whole of England in which to stage over 6000 aircraft?

Had the Germans launched large air attacks then these ships would have been invaluble. They didn't which was good news for all concerned.

I dont believe SHAEF was going to allow the invasion to procede prior to the Luftwaffe put into a position of not interfering with the invasion.

When you think of it, the main purpose of an amphib craft is to get men and material to shore. Any other purpose is secondary and detracts from the most important part of its design.

The USN had the best amphib ships (and the USMC had the best doctrine) in the world.

 

[Glider]

'Ummm, I count at least 20 amphib operations in the Pacific prior to Jun 6 1944. It might shock you, but the invasions in the Central Solomons and in New Guinie were covered mostly by land based airpower. '

Fair point

'For the Sicily/Italy/Normandy operations, air superiority was guarenteed, and as events unfolded the Germans never seriously challanged any invasion. '

Ever heard of a place called Anzio?

'Why have air craft carriers in the confines of the channel when you had the whole of England in which to stage over 6000 aircraft?'

I agree, but this is why we developed the Fighter Direction ships as the controlling stations in the UK were to far away. You did originally ask why we developed these vessels and that was the reason.
The USN did a similar thing in the Pacific when some destroyers and Destroyer Escorts were equipped with extra radar, anti aircraft guns and fighter control facilities when acting as radar pickets. These vessels were to plot suicide raids further away from the main fleets, and control the fighters to maximum effect. Inevitably these vessels paid a heavy price as they were generally on their own with no support apart from the CAP which could be overwhelmed

'When you think of it, the main purpose of an amphib craft is to get men and material to shore. Any other purpose is secondary and detracts from the most important part of its design'

Again I totally agree. The main purpose of these other designs was to allow the landing ships to land and not be distracted by other roles. My previous comment on the repair ships supported this.

'The USN had the best amphib ships (and the USMC had the best doctrine) in the world.'

The objection was to the comment you made at the start that the US wrote the book. In 1944 for the invasion of Normandy the book was still being written

 

[Glider]

Btw, like my question up top, is the Class 45 Destroyer a Stealth ship? from the photo in the link above, it most certainly looks the part.

It is designed to reduce its radar signaiture, but it isn't a stealth ship. I believe that a few true stealth ships are being built for the USN.

 

[syscom3]

Ever heard of a place called Anzio?

Thats the one invasion in the ETO where neither side had air supremecy.

I agree, but this is why we developed the Fighter Direction ships as the controlling stations in the UK were to far away. You did originally ask why we developed these vessels and that was the reason.

Placing the fighter direction onto warships not amphib was the best choice. Every amphib vessel not delivering men and materials is a wasted assett.

The USN did a similar thing in the Pacific when some destroyers and Destroyer Escorts were equipped with extra radar, anti aircraft guns and fighter control facilities when acting as radar pickets. These vessels were to plot suicide raids further away from the main fleets, and control the fighters to maximum effect. Inevitably these vessels paid a heavy price as they were generally on their own with no support apart from the CAP which could be overwhelmed....

Were talking about amphib vessels here. But since you touched upon it, I'd even say the US late war destroyers and destroyer escorts were better than the RN types, heheheheh

'When you think of it, the main purpose of an amphib craft is to get men and material to shore. Any other purpose is secondary and detracts from the most important part of its design'


[quoe] The objection was to the comment you made at the start that the US wrote the book. In 1944 for the invasion of Normandy the book was still being written [/quote]

If SHAEF had listened to the admirals and generals from the PTO (who were the leading practicioners of amphib warfare), they would have had far more battleships and cruisers to cover the landings. The book indeed was being written by the USN/USMC/USA officers and men in the Pacific.

 

[Glider]

'Were talking about amphib vessels here. But since you touched upon it, I'd even say the US late war destroyers and destroyer escorts were better than the RN types, heheheheh '

Late war USN Destroyers were better than the UK Destroyers certainly, but I would back the British version of the Escort Destroyer against the US vessels.

 

[syscom3]

"If SHAEF had listened to the admirals and generals from the PTO (who were the leading practicioners of amphib warfare), they would have had far more battleships and cruisers to cover the landings. The book indeed was being written by the USN/USMC/USA officers and men in the Pacific."

I should also mention the ANZAC forces who also contributed to the doctrine of amphib invasions in the SW Pacific

 

[syscom3]

Ever heard of a place called Anzio?

Thats the one invasion in the ETO where neither side had air supremecy.

I agree, but this is why we developed the Fighter Direction ships as the controlling stations in the UK were to far away. You did originally ask why we developed these vessels and that was the reason.

Placing the fighter direction onto warships not amphib was the best choice. Every amphib vessel not delivering men and materials is a wasted assett.

The USN did a similar thing in the Pacific when some destroyers and Destroyer Escorts were equipped with extra radar, anti aircraft guns and fighter control facilities when acting as radar pickets. These vessels were to plot suicide raids further away from the main fleets, and control the fighters to maximum effect. Inevitably these vessels paid a heavy price as they were generally on their own with no support apart from the CAP which could be overwhelmed....

Were talking about amphib vessels here. But since you touched upon it, I'd even say the US late war destroyers and destroyer escorts were better than the RN types, heheheheh

The objection was to the comment you made at the start that the US wrote the book. In 1944 for the invasion of Normandy the book was still being written

If SHAEF had listened to the admirals and generals from the PTO (who were the leading practicioners of amphib warfare), they would have had far more battleships and cruisers to cover the landings. The book indeed was being written by the USN/USMC/USA officers and men in the Pacific.