Warships that should never been built?

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Could the US Coastguard pay their fuel bills, I mean at full speed don't they burn fuel like it's going out of fashion?
At full speed they are utter fuel hogs, not so bad at cruise. At least with the Coasties the ships would have a mission that they could perform pretty well.
 
A massive waste of time and resources better spent on building a couple of 1952 design carriers. The 6 times over budget rebuild of HMS Victorious to produce an obsolscent ship.

1579485581858.png
 
I tried SO hard not to have to pore more venom out on the Alaska Class, but no...

The Alaska's were not fine ships. They had an exceptional 12 inch gun, possibly one of the best naval rifles every designed. Unfortunately those 12" guns were located on a battleship size hull (808 feet long, 91 feet wide, 35,000 tons full load) with heavy cruiser protection. Had the ship been a balanced design (i.e. proof against its own main battery) it would have had a displacement greater than the North Carolina class (728 feet L, 108 feet W, 45,000 tons full load) and South Dakota class (680' L, 108' W, 45,200 tons full load) battleships. The only ships the U.S. built during WW II that cost more than the Alaska class were the Iowa class battleship, the Kearsarge (which managed to cost $22M dollars more than the rest of the Essex Class for some bloody reason), and the Midway. Yep, the Alaska class cost MORE (fractionally, but still more) than a full on battleship with 9 sixteen inch guns and 20 5"/38s (the Alaskas carried 12 5"/38 and 1/3 fewer 40mm guns than the fast BB classes).

The ships handled like a pig in a poke (ONE rudder! 800 feet long, 35K tons, and ONE GODDAMNED RUDDER, which resulted in an 800 YARD turning radius), were extremely vulnerable to battle damage for a ship of their size due to the aforementioned single rudder and the complete lack of torpedo blisters or any other enhanced underwater protection (hey, it was only a $78 million, in 1940 USD, ship, who cares if a single torpedo can stop it dead if not sink it outright), and quite literally had no useful function that could not to fulfilled by either an actual battleship or by the two heavy cruisers or three CLAA that could be built for the same cost.

While BuShips can be forgiven for starting the design process while the Deutschland class "pocket battleships" were all the rage, the fact that the program officer spent one dollar on these insults to naval architecture after December 10, 1941 comes close to criminal.

BTW: NONE of the hulls had even been laid down before Pearl Harbor, they kept going with the building plans even AFTER it was obvious that the ship had no useful purpose. They were even built in the SAME YARD that built the Independence class CVL. SAME YARD. Five of the Independence class were laid down AFTER the Alaska. They wouldn't have even needed to change the destination for the building materials if they had changed over to carrier construction. Think about that for a second.

It was an abomination. Thank God the U.S. had so much excess capacity and an nearly unlimited supply of money.
I don't disagree with anything that you said. As I alluded to in my post, there were a host of reasons they never should have been built (the ones you just listed). They definitely belong on this list. I look at them go, they have design flaws, but for the purpose they were designed for, they're good ships. It's only when we look back that we realize just how bad they really were and that the resources used on them would have been far better used completing Kentucky and Illinois. They were badly overcome by events that rendered them essentially useless.
 
When rating warships, it's vital to remember the ships' missions. The Panzerschiffe would have been a partial success even without sinking anything. Its purpose when built was at least as much political as military. Wiemar Germany was making a statement, "We are back. We can and will have a modern navy."
They did that BEAUTIFULLY. Without them, getting their next generation of warships past the treaties--or rather, getting rid of the treaties--would have been harder.

They helped kill their primary target: Versailles. Mission accomplished.
 
That's really not that unusual for any ship of that era. Even today it's not unheard of for a ship to throw a prop. Neither was it uncommon for a throttle valve to go bad. Considering the congressionally imposed limits on their size, the South Carolinas were amazing ships. They were both well armed and well armored. They managed a broadside equal to any ship then afloat on several thousand tons less displacement. They were superior ships to Dreadnaught in all respects except speed.
I mean early American battleships were still garbage. The US began building battleships inspired by European designs as a response to Brazil’s Rischuelo. The USS Maine took 9 years to build, so expensive, and when completed was already obsolete. Their subsequent battleships also sucked (and ugly).
 
USS Wasp CV-7 should have never been built as she was(ie a relatively slow poorly protected death trap)if only because the US literally only needed to wait eight more months to build her as a full sized Yorktown class ship. Mind you she was rather impressive in how many aircraft she could carry and she introduced the deck edge elevator (why this wasn't included in Hornet I have no idea).
 
Last edited:
I mean early American battleships were still garbage. The US began building battleships inspired by European designs as a response to Brazil’s Rischuelo. The USS Maine took 9 years to build, so expensive, and when completed was already obsolete. Their subsequent battleships also sucked (and ugly).
To be fair the Maine's and many other earlier US battleships long construction times were a result a mixture of not enough funding, rapidly changing technology,and the fact that US shipyards had basically been out of the warship building business for almost two decades among other factors
 
Last edited:
To be fair the Maine's and many other earlier US battleships long construction times were a result a mixture of not enough funding, rapidly changing technology,and the fact that US shipyards had basically been out of the warship building for almost two decades among other factors
How good were later American battleships anyway?
 
How good were later American battleships anyway?
Considering how the Standards turned out pretty good,although there were some strange pre dreadnoughts thankfully nothing nearly as strange as what the French built.And the earlier Dreadnoughts outside of the South Carolinas(whose sole flaw as compared to other Nations designs when laid down was them being slow) weren't bad either, although the USN was forced to use them as propulsion experiments due to it basically not building anything else and it did lag behind in giving them decent underwater protection with the Wyoming's being the first class fitted with such. This being said by the Tennessee class the USN was building capital ships with the best TDS fitted on any ship being built anywhere in the world
 
Last edited:
Considering how the Standards turned out pretty good,although there were some strange pre dreadnoughts thankfully nothing nearly as strange as what the French built.And the earlier Dreadnoughts outside of the South Carolinas(whose sole flaw as compared to other Nations designs when laid down was them being slow) weren't bad either, although the USN was forced to use them as propulsion experiments due to it basically not building anything else and it did lag behind in giving them decent underwater protection with the Wyoming's being the first class fitted with such. This being said by the Tennessee class the USN was building capital ships with the best TDS fitted on any ship being built anywhere in the world
I heard the Wyomings were pretty bad battleships
 

Driftless

Donor
Way too obvious a candidate.

Lets go modern. Both varieties of the Littoral Combat Ship are massive failures. Damned things can't even pass the standard USN shock testing, which should render them non certifiable for combat operations. Navy needs to paint them white with an orange stripe and give them to the Coast Guard. At least that way they can use their speed to catch drug runners and the Fleet can procure a proper FFG.
I asked this question a bit further upstream: would the USN have been better off with modified USCG Cutters, or just scrapping the Littoral program all together? Or, door # 3 a different design than the two that were built?
 
I heard the Wyomings were pretty bad battleships
Only in the sense that they never got to see any surface action and were rather old by WW2. Of course the fact that the USN ditched an idea to basically make them proto New Yorks as far armament due to the need to build a decent battle line ASAP since doing so would have delayed them being completed by around seven months probably didn't help.
 
I mean early American battleships were still garbage. The US began building battleships inspired by European designs as a response to Brazil’s Rischuelo. The USS Maine took 9 years to build, so expensive, and when completed was already obsolete. Their subsequent battleships also sucked (and ugly).
I mean, not really? American Pre-Dreadnaughts weren't any better or worse than anyone else's TBH. Very early American Pre-Dreadnaughts were a bit behind other nations. But the USN also started later than pretty much everyone else. As for looks, well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder
 
I mean, not really? American Pre-Dreadnaughts weren't any better or worse than anyone else's TBH. Very early American Pre-Dreadnaughts were a bit behind other nations. But the USN also started later than pretty much everyone else. As for looks, well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder
At least the USN didn't build the crimes against common sense,good naval design,logistics, and the rules of how to make decent looking warships that were the French pre-dreadnoughts and their construction and design processes
 

Driftless

Donor
I mean early American battleships were still garbage. The US began building battleships inspired by European designs as a response to Brazil’s Rischuelo. The USS Maine took 9 years to build, so expensive, and when completed was already obsolete. Their subsequent battleships also sucked (and ugly).
I mean, not really? American Pre-Dreadnaughts weren't any better or worse than anyone else's TBH. Very early American Pre-Dreadnaughts were a bit behind other nations. But the USN also started later than pretty much everyone else. As for looks, well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder
I beleive the earlier (pre Span-Am War) US battleships had a lot of congressional pressure against "foreign entanglements", so blue-water battleships were out, and the Maine, Texas, Oregon, Indiana, Massachusetts were all low freeboard coastal defence plodders. They and their monitor counterparts would have been more at home defending Manhattan, Boston, etc. Even the first Iowa was just an incremental step ahead.
 
I asked this question a bit further upstream: would the USN have been better off with modified USCG Cutters, or just scrapping the Littoral program all together? Or, door # 3 a different design than the two that were built?
IMO the USN should have just went for a frigate design based off of the ANZAC class frigates (which in turn is based off a MEKO 200 variant). Or if the USN waited to the mid to late 2000's they could look at a design based off of the FREMM class frigates, which is one of the 5 finalist for the future frigate program.
 
IMO the USN should have just went for a frigate design based off of the ANZAC class frigates (which in turn is based off a MEKO 200 variant). Or if the USN waited to the mid to late 2000's they could look at a design based off of the FREMM class frigates, which is one of the 5 finalist for the future frigate program.
No point if the US has the money for a destroyer
 
Top