AWFUL Warships From History (2024)

@AndrewGivens11 месяцев назад ⁺¹⁹

The hate for and legend of the 'worst battleship' USS Massachussetts is a very very recent one. It doesn't seem to be borne out by the ship's career or relationship with its two surprisingly successfully seagoing 'coastal battleship' sisters. If I had to guess, I would put this one down to an 'Internet whisper' possibly originating on Reddit.
The Hoche, likewise, had an absolute hatchet-job done on her in the early 1990s in a book written for Guinnes about naval blunders, wherein it was written that she rammed and sank the packet steamer Marechal Canrobert (as apparent proof of her shoddiness?) with the loss of 103 souls aboard the Canrobert. This became the basis of all internet articles about her - and thus 'fact'.
Actually, however, some original research by myself uncovered newspaper reports of the time which revealed that Canrobert had been carrying 103 souls and that 3 were lost in the collision.
In fact, the whole episode was the fault of the Canrobert's captain;. He had attempted to give his passengers a splendid up-close view of the Mediterranean squadron firing their guns on maneouvres, after he sighted them whilst approaching Marseilles. He clearly got *way* too close and, in the smoke of the gun discharges, the mail/passenger steamer inadvertently crossed the bow of the battleship nearest on the end of the squadron's line abreast (Hoche).
Hoche's captain, on the other hand, whilst having to keep station as this onlooker hung around, clearly saw the danger and, at the last moment, seems to have been prepared for the collision. The clue is that, as soon as the crash had ocurred, the battleship stopped and her myriad boat-cranes were swung out; the Canrobert was hurriedly lashed alongside & supported by the cranes while all survivors were taken off. Then the traces were cut and she was allowed to take her final plunge (her wreck can be dived today).
No-one was lost in the actual sinking - only the three in the ramming - mainly thanks to the skill and professionalism of Hoche's command team.
Once you look deeper into it, the story is usually more sobering and believable. But people of the early 21stC just love to mock these crazy old Victorian things.

@planescaped11 месяцев назад ⁺²

Thing looks/sounded like a deathtrap to me.
I'd have hated to be assigned to it.

@AndrewGivens8 месяцев назад ⁺¹⁰

@@planescaped But why exactly? What about it made it into the deathtrap you think it was? Why were her two identical sisters such effective battleships when they saw actual, real, face-to-face battle with the enemy' warships? Why didn't they just roll over and sink under the weight of their stupid guns and stupid turrets, or else roll over under the impulse of the recoil of their stupid guns?
Answer:
Because there was *absolutely nothing wrong with them* apart from a little lower freeboard than an ocean-spanning navy of the time would have preferred in their battleships.
What you've done, is bought into a modern myth. This absolute garbage is not from the historical record - it's brand-new and it's completely made-up. Do not believe such utter rubbish.
Do yourself a massive favour and read about the USN's Spanish-American War service and especially the Battle of Santiago de Cuba - one of America's most spectacular and decisive naval victories. (You can forget all about Dewey and Manila Bay; Santiago de Cuba was the real deal).

@AlexanderVonish8 месяцев назад ⁺⁹

@@AndrewGivens​​⁠​⁠​⁠there was no myth of problems existing that existed onboard the Indiana class, but, I do doubt they were death traps either, all battleships have their own faults after all, but that doesn’t completely make them a bad ship. The hate may more likely stem from the criticism from the design aspects, as her service records along with the other sisters were quite good, but design-wise, they did have to get bilge-keels installed during their service life since one of them had their clamps snap and sailed to port when the crew were worried they will snap again in a different journey -having occurred 4 months later after the first incident-, and the cases where the ships do indeed lean with their gun’s positioning being another problem, and a few other faults, weren’t as wonderful. These particular flaws wasn’t recent, having been documented in the 1980s in Reilly & Scheina’s “American Battleships 1886-1923: Predreadnought Design and Construction.” Book. Fortunately, several of the flaws were fixed, improving their characteristics. The other problems did not hold back the three from getting embalmed into history, and for all it’s worth, demonstrate the class’s ability to serve even with their issues.

@AndrewGivens8 месяцев назад ⁺⁶

@@AlexanderVonish Now that's far more like it. A much more balanced view.
I dislike it when i have to come down hard on one side of a discussion, because it's not being dealt with in a mature, informed or nuanced way, but that's how it is sometimes. If it promotes a better-balanced view coming along, like yours, and an informed view at that, then i'm glad to have done it.
Ultimately, it's not as though, as you say, a great many ships didn't have their issues, but these were generally not fatal flaws. Rather, they were quirks - and some gave more headaches than others, but they're quirks.
What I will say, in light of your comments, is my true feeling about the Indianas is that they were a first attempt at a first-class battleship and they attempted a lot for the displacement - and were too ambitious. Iowa was clearly an improvement, but doesn't invalidate the qualities that the Indianas, as fixed, clearly had.
But they were very clearly superior in many regards to either of the Texas or Maine, whilst still falling short of contemporary European standards & trends. But look where the USN was with BB design five years on. Doing well.
You'd hate my take on the Orlando-class cruisers...