Most Influential Ship? (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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... :rolleyes:}


{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.
 
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.
 
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

.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:lol:) .......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.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back