Warships that should never been built?


Then there is this Commie Shit Rebuild of a Dreadnought, which though in their original configuration looked fine, but with their rebuilds in the 1930s, look very ugly. These ships also had no real purpose within the Soviet Fleet during WWII other than a glorified artillery platform.
 

Then there is this Commie Shit Rebuild of a Dreadnought, which though in their original configuration looked fine, but with their rebuilds in the 1930s, look very ugly. These ships also had no real purpose within the Soviet Fleet during WWII other than a glorified artillery platform.
Battleships have an important purpose, even if they aren't great ships. If you have one, and the other country doesn't, you have a major advantage. Any battleship is better than none, and the USSR's options were this one or nothing. Ugly--yes. Poor warships for the 1940's? Yes.

Genuine battleships...very much so. Germany--the likely enemy--had predreadnoughts, and later, panzerschiffe. Nether of those ships would want to be within gun range of this ship. The guns were quite good.

A "Glorified artillery platform" is also a useful thing...12" guns are much bigger than any practical land weapons.

So great ships? No. Good enough ships...IMVHO, yes.
 

Then there is this Commie Shit Rebuild of a Dreadnought, which though in their original configuration looked fine, but with their rebuilds in the 1930s, look very ugly. These ships also had no real purpose within the Soviet Fleet during WWII other than a glorified artillery platform.
 
Im gonna go out on a limb here and say the Baden-Wurttemberg Class frigates. These ships, for their size and displacement seem inadequately armed, especially in the Anti air missile department, the BW only have 2 RAM launchers. These frigates seem to be designed in similar train of thought with the USN LCS, designed and built to deal with "asymmetric" threats and provide support. However, ironically, it seems that the previous frigates (Bremen Class) that the BW class are replacing seem more heavily armed to deal with any threats then the BW itself. If there is to be a traditional "shooting war" with missile attacks against NATO/ German naval forces, the BW class are in serious trouble, what good are water cannons (yes, these ships have water cannons) are gonna be against mach 1 capable sea skimming anti ship missiles?
It's worse than that. At least one ship was sent back to the builders due to a permanent list, and overall the German government is furious at the shipbuilder for completely fucking up the construction. They definitely belong here.

Tax:
Long Beach, as cool as she is, should probably not have been built. She was expensive to buy, expensive to run, her SCANFAR system was temperamental and removed during her later modernization, and once her Talos missiles were landed she brought very little to the table that a much cheaper Leahy could not.

Similarly, I have become increasingly less fond of the Virginia-class cruiser the more I learn about missile combatants. Her nuke plant was the only advantage she had over a much cheaper Kidd, let alone the Ticonderogas. At least Bainbridge and Truxtun could use Standard-ER, and California had a full four guidance radars!
 
Battleships have an important purpose, even if they aren't great ships. If you have one, and the other country doesn't, you have a major advantage. Any battleship is better than none, and the USSR's options were this one or nothing. Ugly--yes. Poor warships for the 1940's? Yes.

Genuine battleships...very much so. Germany--the likely enemy--had predreadnoughts, and later, panzerschiffe. Nether of those ships would want to be within gun range of this ship. The guns were quite good.

A "Glorified artillery platform" is also a useful thing...12" guns are much bigger than any practical land weapons.

So great ships? No. Good enough ships...IMVHO, yes.
Expect those “Glorified artillery platforms” helped saved Leningrad. Keep laughing Panzer commander.
 

Then there is this Commie Shit Rebuild of a Dreadnought, which though in their original configuration looked fine, but with their rebuilds in the 1930s, look very ugly. These ships also had no real purpose within the Soviet Fleet during WWII other than a glorified artillery platform.
As ugly as these?

French battleship Hoche : (left side)

American battleship USS Maine : (right side)

As someone who is a proud patriotic American and loves French warships, USA and France has REALLY ugly battleships
 

Attachments

Last edited:
r their size and displacement seem inadequately armed,
I know nothing about the specific ships, but "under armed for their displacement "is a continual refrain throughout history. Usually from people who don't understand things like blast radius, magnetic interference, stability, hogging, behind the scenes stuff like that. Again, I know nothing about these specific ships, but usually there is a point to looking under armed.


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
Apparently there was a bit of a learning curve going on behind the skin with American pre-Dreadnoughts. One example I can remember was the main guns one of the classes wasn't balanced within the turret so training to the side would cause the ship to list. A std feature on RN ships at the time. The USN tended to over arm, causing the problems I mentioned above. Institutional knowledge takes a while to build up. It makes it an interesting time period before industrial dominance takes all the fun out of it.
 
I think it is a bit unfair to attck the Lord Nelson Class.
1, They were designed before the Dreadnought.
2. their design was politically constrained as unlike Dreadnought it was insisted that they fitted into the Chatham Drydock.
3. At the time their construction commenced the Dreadnought Design was not Proven as being any better.
4. The Nelsons were delayed in completion because all four of their Main 12" were diverted to Dreadnought in order to get her completed ASAP, Again Polotics.

All in all the Nelsons were not bad ships by the standards of the day, It is just the RN threw the rule book away!!
 
How about the RN's Type 21? . . . cheap and nasty.

They'd been better off waiting a few years then building more Type 22's instead . . . and that's before we get on to the Alli' used in it's structure.

Did the job (barely) . . . but don't set fire to them
It proved that the Admiralty were right to resist the Treasury's penny-pinching pressure to adopt a blank-sheet design by from a commerical shipbuilder. They'd have been reasonably adequate if they'd been kept to their original patrol frigate role of pootling around the Persian Gulf telling everyone to "Do as I say or my big brothers will come along and kick your arse."
Best part . . . the RN are about to make the same mistake in the Type 31's.
I'd prefer more T26's, but unlike the T21 the T31 has plenty of room to expand their capabilities and being based on the Danish Iver Huitfeldt design means that unlike the T21's they should be perfectly capable of operating in the North Atlantic. Of the designs submitted for the T31 the design selected seems by far the most promising.
 
She used a defective armor scheme with railroad rails providing the majority of the protection with only a thin layer of plate on top. This was proved inadequate in her early action at Drewry's Bluff. All three of the initial ironclad designs were experimental. New Ironsides was the most conventional and a success, Monitor was the most radical and a success. The middle ground was the failure. Is there a lesson in that?
New Ironsides in my view is more of an ocean going ironclad, as Gloire of France was, although for her prospective environment, New Ironsides had a shallower draft.

Galena actually had a lower displacement than Monitor, about 950 tons to about 980. I'm not sure I'd call her a 'middle ground' attempt, more of an attempt to see if a more conventional frigate could be armored. I'm sure the weight on armor on those tumble-home sides didn't help with rolling. Still, she had to be viewed very, very poorly to be taken out of service in the middle of a war....

IMO the prime example of a warship that should never have been built: RN K-class submarines.
Steam turbines, 5 minute dive times (except when 'accidentally dived'), 339' long with a max dive depth of 200'. Dozens of remote-operated controls...
... what could possibly go right?
£6 million well spent (that's about 2 Hoods, or 30-35 destroyers)
Concur. They should have been as dangerous to the Germans as they were to their own crews...
 
I think it is a bit unfair to attck the Lord Nelson Class.
1, They were designed before the Dreadnought.
2. their design was politically constrained as unlike Dreadnought it was insisted that they fitted into the Chatham Drydock.
3. At the time their construction commenced the Dreadnought Design was not Proven as being any better.
4. The Nelsons were delayed in completion because all four of their Main 12" were diverted to Dreadnought in order to get her completed ASAP, Again Polotics.

All in all the Nelsons were not bad ships by the standards of the day, It is just the RN threw the rule book away!!
If they'd been completed first as originally intended, I suspect they would appear as a very natural development towards Dreadnought (which in terms of the design process, they were). An all big gun design for what became the Lord Nelsons was considered with 10" guns, but fitment of at least some 12" was regarded as essential.

They were also better armoured than Dreadnought (and indeed everything up to the Orions, except in terms of torpedo protection).
 
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 don't think the CG would want them. They like ships that are durable and have a reasonable cost to operate (especially given their low budgets) But that hasn't stopped them from being stuck with Navy castoffs before.
 
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).
We only know 'They only had to wait eight months' because we are looking back. No one knew that the treaties were going to come to such a quick end when she was designed and ordered. And even that eight month delay could have ended up being critical if she had not been available when she was.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I don't think the CG would want them. They like ships that are durable and have a reasonable cost to operate (especially given their low budgets) But that hasn't stopped them from being stuck with Navy castoffs before.
Exactly. The Coast Guard get screwed at budget time, always has. A bunch of low hour, high speed, low manning cost (40-50 personnel vs. 113 for the Legend class or 160+ for the Hamilton class) that can be used specifically for the drug interdiction role (one thing the LCS classes are is FAST, as in freeway legal speed fast) that are designed for both helicopter operations and small boat ops is better than a kick in the nuts.
 
The Swedish Goatland was trying too hard to be too many things and therefore didnt do any very well . Also issues with supply of aircraft didn't help
 
Top