difference between a frigate, a destroyer & a cruiser

[Ths]

No, the US Navy did that during WW2.

And simultaneously confirmed another law: Growth in size to the rediciolus just before extinction. That applies in biology as well.

 

[Rich]

Rich: It is more or less a technological law: The best represenatatives of a concept are made AFTER the concept has become obsolete.

The best stone daggers were made in the bronce-age.
The best sailingsships were build after steamengines had taken over.
The best propfighters were build after the jetengine.

Good point, and one thats true in "most" cases. Then again lets not forget the fact that even the Yank super-BBs, the Iowas, were designed, indeed their keels laid, before it became apparent naval warfare had moved on past the Dreadnoughts. Even the Montana's were designed before flat-tops became the rage, or at least in between taranto and PH. The argument could also be made that the Iowas were worthwhile, or at least worth their steel, due to their excellence in fire support for amphib ops.

The Montanas could be called the best BB design that never was made. They probably would have been the most unsinkable warships ever built as their steel belts/decks would have been made in the USA, and we made the best steel at the time. Japanese steel was far inferior, as was their BB designs, tho I'd call the Kongo class the exception. At least when they were built as they were ahead of their time.

Generally however??? Japanese BB design, construction, and tactics, were deeply flawed. Even their strategic naval plan was flawed as they consistently fight a stupid naval war. As an example, among many, was their foolish deployment of their excellent destroyer and submarine forces. They had fine boats and an outstanding torpedo but they never used their submarines effectively preferring to waste them as scouts. Of equal stupidity was their refusal to organize a convoy system, which would have been a worthwhile use of their excellent destroyer classes.

Then again if they had used their heads and fought a strategic ground war, instead of wasting so much occupying so many worthless Islands, a convoy system wouldn't have even been necessary.

But I dont want to get into Japanese blunders of WW-ll. I could go on for hours.

 

[Ths]

As to the use of Japanese subs:
I'm not so sure they were badly used.

It was a very close call that the japanese subs did to the US carriers what the japanese carriers did to the US BB's.
At one point there was only the Enterprise left operationally - the other were sunk or in the yard being not only patched up; but undergoing major surgery.

But if You have any influence with the august power that rule this board with their plenipotentary severity.. a history board would perhaps not be amiss.
In the case of Imperial Japan there could be discussion of general interest.

 

[contedicavour]

No, the US Navy did that during WW2.

And simultaneously confirmed another law: Growth in size to the rediciolus just before extinction. That applies in biology as well.

Hmmm... what about 110,000 tonne supercarriers or 12,000 tonne "destroyers" , etc ...

Size is not really a problem, at least it's not what makes a ship expensive.

cheers

 

[Ths]

Well, the dinosaur comparison was what I hinted: Don't get in the way of a T-Rex as it makes it way to extinction.

Indubitably the US carrier battle group is something to taken serious; but I can't help think what will come after it.

It might some day write an essay discussing the US Navy and the Royal Danish Navy - just to get the extreemes of the spectrum.