Warships that should never been built?

True and as a consequence their ships weren't that good. Sorry but I must stress this point a ship (the Hipper the Scharnosts etc) whose machinery fails regularly when pressed doesn't do his job. To sail for months on a end with minimum help from shore against more modern enemies and still do the job and win. That is it.
The Germans did their best. Ultimately, their designs weren't that really good due to a lack of experience and I think Japanese and Italian warships were better. The same could be said about their tanks, where they were inferior to British, French, American and Soviet models. The British, French, and Americans had 20 years of experience when Germany had no experience. Sure Stalin purged his armies but they weren't raped like Germany after World War 1 so they had some experience to make good tanks. Ultimately a lack of experience, German obsession with craftsmanship, overengineering, and the Nazi's own ideology contributed to the German tank's flaws
 
Last edited:
Depends on the context and era you are viewing. At the start of the World War 2 Pacific theater, then yes Japan was indeed THE most modern navy in the world. However, Japanese industry couldn't keep up with American industry and therefore was unable to make improvements or make new designs while the Americans with the vast industry and resources churned out superior models like as if they were making cars. The American battleships at Leyte Gulf not only outnumbered the Japanese, they were also significantly modernized into practically new ships.

As for the Italians...
Having a modern navy doesn't represent competence.
A lot of the Italian incompetence and general nonsense was down to some of the Admirals being appointed because of political reasons, and having terrible quality control for shells.
The Littorios has good guns. When they had good shells.
When they didn't you had shell dispersion you could put an island between.
When you had decent Italian admirals and a lucky batch of shells you were dangerous.
Not to mention italian frogmen put two british ships low in Alexandria, had arguably the best midget submarine of ww2 and the highest killing ww2 sub outside the kreigsmarine.
Italians are given a hard time, but the British had two of their best admirals in the Med fighting them
 
A lot of the Italian incompetence and general nonsense was down to some of the Admirals being appointed because of political reasons, and having terrible quality control for shells.
The Littorios has good guns. When they had good shells.
When they didn't you had shell dispersion you could put an island between.
When you had decent Italian admirals and a lucky batch of shells you were dangerous.
Not to mention italian frogmen put two british ships low in Alexandria, had arguably the best midget submarine of ww2 and the highest killing ww2 sub outside the kreigsmarine.
Italians are given a hard time, but the British had two of their best admirals in the Med fighting them
Leading the Mediterranean fleet was one of the most prestigious positions of the Royal Navy, as it connected Britain with it's empire.
 

nbcman

Donor
Depends on the context and era you are viewing. At the start of the World War 2 Pacific theater, then yes Japan was indeed THE most modern navy in the world. However, Japanese industry couldn't keep up with American industry and therefore was unable to make improvements or make new designs while the Americans with the vast industry and resources churned out superior models like as if they were making cars. The American battleships at Leyte Gulf not only outnumbered the Japanese, they were also significantly modernized into practically new ships.

As for the Italians...
Having a modern navy doesn't represent competence.
Then what about 2nd Guadal where a modern USN BB thrashed a IJN ‘BB’. Or how the USN managed to decisively defeat the IJN ships in 1942 at a little island in the central Pacific. Or at the start of WW2, Italy not only didn’t have any modern BBs they didn’t have one of their old BBs which was being updated. Please illuminate us on what ships the IJN had that were more modern. As the majority of the IJN BBs most definitely were not more modern than any other fleet in the world. And their floating hotel wasn’t more modern. It was a waste of steel and oil.
 
Leading the Mediterranean fleet was one of the most prestigious positions of the Royal Navy, as it connected Britain with it's empire.
Yeah I don't think the British had half their fleet and gigantic resources in the Med during ww2 because of prestige.
The Italians were considered a great threat to the british position, huge resources were poured into the Med, Malta was under siege for years and the British got very lucky the italians didn't push in some battles, because quite frankly sometimes the best weapon the brits had to bear apart from the 15/42s was one hell of a bluff
 
Then what about 2nd Guadal where a modern USN BB thrashed a IJN ‘BB’. Or how the USN managed to decisively defeat the IJN ships in 1942 at a little island in the central Pacific. Or at the start of WW2, Italy not only didn’t have any modern BBs they didn’t have one of their old BBs which was being updated. Please illuminate us on what ships the IJN had that were more modern. As the majority of the IJN BBs most definitely were not more modern than any other fleet in the world. And their floating hotel wasn’t more modern. It was a waste of steel and oil.
The Italian ships got completely rebuilt. At Guadalcanal, it was two American battleships vs 1 Japanese battlecruiser. Japan also had a fleet of new heavy cruisers. Japan also had the best naval aviation service at the beginning.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
French, Italian and Japanese warships were the most modern of the war. Japan probably was THE most modern navy of the war.
Based on what?

Numbers? Between 1935 and 1945 the IJN commissioned exactly TWO new Battleships, the Italians managed three, the French four (although the Dunkerques were arguablly battle cruisers, not true fast BB). The United State commissioned 10 (2 North Carolina, 4 South Dakota, 4 Iowa). The Royal Navy commissioned 5 KGV. At the start of WW II the Japanese had Six fleet carriers, France had an "aircraft carrier" the Italians had none, the USN had 8 (including Hornet which was on its shakedown cruise on December 7th), the Royal Navy had 10 fleet carriers. Of course during the war the U.S. commissioned 16 Essex class fleet carriers and 9 Independence class CVL (and one Midway class, that snuck in under the wire)

Technology? The Japanese didn't have ANY shipborne radar until April of 1942 (when sets were installed in the Ise and Hyuga). The Royal Navy had its first set afloat in 1938, with gun control sets out by 1940. The USN had its first sets afloat in mid 1940.

About the only real "edge" the IJN had was one specific aircraft, the A6M Zero, even in that case it was an advantage that was fleeting, with the F4F actually having a positive win:lose ratio vs. the Zero, and the F6F, F4U, and F8F operating on an entirely different plane of existence. The B5N had good range, but Ralphie could shoot it down with his Red Ryder air rifle (has a compass in the stock) and the D3A was massively inferior to the SBD. IJN torpedoes were very good, although the decision to use oxygen fueled engines was, at best, questionable; two Japanese heavy cruisers were lost off Samar when their Type 93 torpedoes exploded due to damage to their oxygen flasks.
 
Last edited:
About the only real "edge" the IJN had was one specific aircraft, the A6M Zero, even in that case it was an advantage that was fleeting, with the F4F actually having a positive win:lose ratio vs. the Zero, and the F6F, F4U, and F8F operating on an entirely different plane of existence. The B5N had good range, but Ralphie could shoot it down with his Red Ryder air rifle (has a compass in the stock) and the D3A was massively inferior to the SBD. IJN torpedoes were very good, although the decision to use oxygen fueled engines was, at best, questionable; two Japanese heavy cruisers were lost off Samar when their Type 93 torpedoes exploded due to damage to their oxygen flasks.
Wasn't Japan's carrier doctrine pretty far ahead at the start of the pacific war?
 
Every KM ship larger than a Light Cruiser was a waste. The KM needs subs, lots of them, from the first day of the war.
If the Germans dont lay down BBs, etc while going hog wild on U Boats what does UK do? AGNA 35 & 37 brought the Germans valuable diplomatic cover.

No dispute that the Hipper class was a waste along with Graf Zeppelin. Bismarck had one voyage and Tirpitz hid in Norway her whole life. Twins did good service first two years but was down hill after. This said the AGNA opened door to repudiation of ToV, Rhineland, Austria, etc. If Germany builds a fleet targeted on British what changes?

Michael
 
You mean aside from the part where they didn't give a flying f--- if they got their highly trained experienced aircrew back at the end of a mission, or go looking to rescue any that were shot down?
I don't recall saying it was perfect.

Their disregard for the lives of their pilots aside, if I'm not mistaken, the IJN was the world's only operator of a CVBG at the start of the Pacific War, and that gave them a pretty decisive edge in a number of the early engagements.
 
The Japanese had the advantage of only having to operate in one ocean and were able to concentrate their carriers accordingly. The USN and in particular the RN had to spread themselves a lot thinner.
 
I do think the US navy in World War 2 was the best, in technology, size, and doctrine, but bear in mind the wide industrial gap between the US and it’s enemies.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Wasn't Japan's carrier doctrine pretty far ahead at the start of the pacific war?
Not really. If anything it was behind the U.S. and RN overall. As an example they had a REALLY screwy perspective on anti-aircraft defense, while the American and British escorts were a critical part of the defenses of the task force, the IJN didn't do things that way. The carriers were seen as being their own best defense, using their own AAA mounts (which were markedly inferior to the U.S. 5"/38).

What the IJN was able to do, which the U.S. and UK couldn't, was concentrate all their carriers into a single striking force, the Kido Butai. That gave them the six decks needed to perform the Pearl Harbor operation. The Japanese could do that because they only had to cover half the Pacific. The USN had two Full Oceans and a Sea/Gulf to deal with, the RN , three Oceans and a Sea.
 
Top