Loved it, but a few comments and corrections: 1. The Queen Elizabeth battleships had 15" guns, not 16" like the show said. 2. Why was the HMS Hood even in the top 20, much less the top ten? It was big, but at the end of the day, was only a battlecruiser. No battlecruiser, especially not a British one given their terrible history, should be on any top ten list. 3. Why no South Dakota US battleships? 4. Bismarck was overrated, too. Their turret armor was particularly weak. Biz had her main battery fire snuffed out by HMS Rodney in about 15 minutes, as I recall.
I also loved the top-10 warships show. But I was actually stunned when they came to the end and had not mentioned the neuclear subs. The "Boomers" have the greatest firepower of any military weapon ever devised. They have been in service for many years. Their 'fear-factor' is absolutely unmatched. They have never been defeated. Are they not a "ship"??
The nuclear subs should not be on the list for one simple fact: they have never participated in combat. A large number of submarines participated in desert storm, but they only fired tomahawk missles. While their fear factor is (and should be) high, they have yet to actually proved their combat abilities in their primary roles.
Also, for shear innovation, the HMS dreadnaught, the first of the "modern" modern battleships, didn't make the list either, although it revolutionized warship design.
The american battleships were very well represented on that list, although there wasn't actually a great deal of difference between the classes that werer built leading up to and during the war. The only major difference between the North Carolina, South Dakota and Iowa classes was size and electronics. They all carried the same weapons compliments, although through modernization, the iowas were able to remain in service until the late 1990's.
Originally posted by the_moondog: The nuclear subs should not be on the list for one simple fact: they have never participated in combat. While their fear factor is (and should be) high, they have yet to actually proved their combat abilities in their primary roles.
If any ship has actually faught in combat more then any other during the cold war atleast, subs have hads down done more combat then we truly know. Just because they havent made front page news means nothing.
More attack subs have tracked enemy boomer and attack subs and have even fired upon one another. Boomers are another story, yes it true, they havent really faught anything, but fire tomahawk missiles, but it this not what they were built for. They are, after all, not attack subs.
A Sub is not a fighting ship. A sub is in a class of its own and have diffrent factors in making a good sub then a good ship. A sub don't need armor when a battleship can't hit it underwater. Also at least Hood and Bismark fought against ships of its own or stronger class. People talk about Yamato but the biggest ship it fired at was a destroyer. Also some Historians call Hood a Battleship.
The "Top Ten" series is an interesting series. However, opinions are like noses, everybody has one. In addition this series seems to have a distinctly European bias. The exception may be the "Top Ten Fighting Ships". Although I do disagree with a couple of their choices, most notably the Hood and the Graf Spe, I do take note that six of the ten were U.S. ships.
While we are on this subject, these series only seem to go back as far as WWI. If this were not true then the 18th century U.S. Frigates, such as U.S.S. Constitution, should be considered. They were so effective that British captains were ordered not to engage them in single combat. Also, the Greek Triremes were the super ships of their day.
I agree whole heartedly with the opinion that the Hood has no business on this list and that Dreadnaught does. Also, interesting point about the pre-20th century ships, HMS Victory would certainly be a candidate.
Additional points:
The Tico and Nimitz class was rated too high, Essex should be above Nimitz (incidently, the Franklin was hit by two bombs, NOT a Kamikazi).
How would the Sumner class DDs compare to the Fletchers? I tend to personally favor the Sumners, but I don't have enough data to make a good argument one way or the other.
What about WWII cruisers? The Japanese cruisers were very effective warships that did tremndous damage. Also, the Baltimore's had an awsome capability and served into Viet Nam.
They even said that warships have been used for a long time, yet they didnt go back before ww1. How disappointing. Also, i think it is a mistake to put carriers and battleships in the same category; it;s like putting ifvs and tanks together
The american battleships were very well represented on that list, although there wasn't actually a great deal of difference between the classes that werer built leading up to and during the war. The only major difference between the North Carolina, South Dakota and Iowa classes was size and electronics. They all carried the same weapons compliments, although through modernization, the iowas were able to remain in service until the late 1990's.
Not entirely true. The Iowas had 16" 50 caliber guns, the North Carolinas and SoDaks had 16" 45's. All 3 classes had very different armor schemes, too. Plus, the Iowas were 6+ knots faster.
This was the silliest countdown I have ever seen. Six of the top 10 are battleships! God, who doesn't love a fast ship with a foot and a half ribbon of steel wrapped around it with beautiful big guns; but one Essex class carrier could sink every one of the battlships on their list, including the Iowas. Taranto, Pearl Harbor? My god, if we can't learn anything 50 years down the line, we are in trouble. COme to think of it, we are in trouble, 'cause our carriers are now our battleships of WWII. They are great unless you get in a real war!
I would have included the USS Monitor and the CSS Virginia. Greek Triremes and Viking ships certainly ruled the seas in their eras as well. The USS Constitution retired undefeated. And what about the IMS Yamato? That big boy would have blown a passel of Iowa's out of the water.
