Which was the most successful WW2 warship of each of the major countries? In the case of USA it's a no-brainer that it's Big E, but what about UK, Japan, France, Germany, Italy?
You would honestly be better off asking for the most successful type of warship. For Germany it'd be uboats, America it'd be aircraft carriers, etc.
>>409277
Otto Kretschner sank over 250,000 tonnes of shipping in a mere 2 and a half years of world war 2. He commanded several different U-Boats tho so the honor is split amongst them.
As for Japan's ships, it's hard to say. Most of their victorious early warships were sunk at Midway. Yamato, maybe?
No idea of what British, French or Italian ships. The British performed exceptionally bad in the Pacific for being so experienced at sea.
I imagine it would be only minor, pyrrhic successes for the French and Italian warships.
>>409293
>the parked bus of Yamato
If I were to choose, I'd pick Zuikaku, but I'm not really knowledgeable about other ship classes.
UK's is Warspite, easily. Very distinguished in smacking the Regina Marina in the unfairly forgotten Mediterranean theater.
Technically, if we're counting ships and not unterseebooten, Germany's is Bismarck since she took down a battleship.
>>409293
>The British performed exceptionally bad in the Pacific for being so experienced at sea.
Because, before the war in europe was effectively over, the only serious force sent by the British to the Pacific was Force Z, they were understandably preoccupied with the Atlantic/Med. The ANZAC/Dutch/British combined navy held its ground well considering the numbers disparity before American reinforcements arrived, however.
>>409344
>battleship
battlecruiser*
>>409352
>The ANZAC/Dutch/British combined navy held its ground well considering the numbers disparity before American reinforcements arrived, however.
No it didn't. They did not sink a single ship above Destroyer class until Coral Sea and Midway. Meanwhile they lost plenty of their own. They didn't hold anything together at all.
>>409293
>Parked Battleship Yamato
Hilarious
>>409277
Though being a destroyer, she would be the Enterprise of IJN as a lucky ship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_destroyer_Yukikaze_(1939)
>>409648
>everyone around dies
Sounds like someone has been flaking on escort duty.
>>409277
>France
Most of French navy was scuttled, only a few joined the Allies force so there isn't much to talk about (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuttling_of_the_French_fleet_in_Toulon)
Probably the Zuikaku for Japan, Enterprise for the USA, I'd honestly say the Scharnhorst or Gneisenau for Germany, for their successful raiding careers. I have no idea about Italy or France, but UK's is definitely the Warspite.
>>409277
Italy is their manned torpedoes.
>>409293
>Hotel Yamato
>>409277
For the Japanese, I'd say I-19.
>>409277
>Forgetting about Japanese heavy cruisers
The Japanese carriers did more damage but the Japanese cruisers were so much more ridiculously better than any other counterpart around the world. At night there was nothing so dangerous at sea than the Japanese heavy cruisers
>>410576
[DESIRE TO KNOW MORE INTENSIFIES]
>>409344
>Warspite
>mfw
The Richelieu, I would say for France.
>>410590
Prince Phillip command HMS Valiant's searchlights in that battle.
>>410583
Well really it comes down to two things. First is the Long Lance torpedo. Hands down the best torpedo of WWII. Longer range and more deadly than any other torpedo. But what compounded the advantage is that USN cruisers weren't even armed with torpedoes at all. Just 8 inch guns for the CAs. Secondly, the Japanese were far better trained to fight at night than any of their enemies. The result was that in night the Japanese could close in on USN fleets then fire their powerful torpedoes relatively accurately while the USN cruisers could only respond with gunfire. Even when the USN got primitive radar they were at a disadvantage at night (see Battle of Savo Island). But honestly USN cruisers strategy was absolutely idiotic. The focus was on day fighting with guns but such battles were very rare since of course aircraft were the kings of the daylight.
it's really amazing to read about all the ships and see just how few engagements a lot of them had been in
>>411921
What did training for night fighting entail?
Like, I know that Japanese success at nightfighting on land was basically an accidental plus of their infantry doctrine.
>>411921
>Secondly, the Japanese were far better trained to fight at night than any of their enemies
The RN actually trained heavily for night actions.
>>412149
I'm no expert on military training but I imagine just particating in night exercises would be pretty much it. That's how you build experience in peace time. The Japanese obviously spent a lot more time practicing it.
And as for the similarities in land doctrine, their success is pretty much the same reason. An aggressive foe with a lot of shock power attacking under the cover of night can be pretty devastating.
>>412211
Certainly they trained more than the USN and performed better but you have to remember they were stuck with a lot of 10,000 ton treaty heavy cruisers. Most Japanese heavy cruisers were in the 15,000 ton range. And the Long Lance was still much better than any torpedo the British had. Meanwhile British battleships were slow and cumbersome beasts aside from the 2 that got sunk off Malaya at the very beginning of the war (guarantee you that was the last time a naval commander of major warships declined air cover). Japanese heavy cruisers could sneak up at night, launch all their torpedoes in a frenzy attack, and run away before the Allies could train their guns at night (if they ever could that is). They were truly dominant in night encounters and did pretty well in the day because of their speed.
HMS Rodney would be a better choice than Warspite: outshot KGV and hammered the Bismark to a crippled hulk
For Italy was:
Flottiglia X MAS ,frogmen they blew a huge hit in Alexandria ,for example.
Italian navy was very good, nice ships,good performance but not so good admirals and moreover admirals in the HQ didn't want to loose any ship and they just used 'em for minimal operations and in a passive way....just responding to UK ops.
Italians did good in support of supply operations of North Africa despite all...for example Malta.
Another big problem regarding the use of the fleet was the lack of cordination between navy and airforce .
>>416340
>admirals in the HQ didn't want to loose any ship and they just used 'em for minimal operations and in a passive way
You say this like it's a bad thing. Ship-in-harbour is generally held to have been the best strategy for ww2 Italy.
>>416371
>Ship-in-harbour is generally held to have been the best strategy for ww2 Italy.
Best strategy? Taranto showed otherwise, in addition to proving once and for all that naval aviation was the new hotness.
>>416408
>Taranto showed otherwise
How so?
>>416371
I dont think so.
You have a fleet ,you are at war ,use IT,finish.
In daytime Italy could fight against UK fleet without problems,they just need more cordination with SUPERAEREO .
Night time fight training was largerly better on brit side.
Btw keeping the fleet in the harbours resulted Also in "Taranto" .....after Taranto everybody in SUPERMARINA was scared to use the fleet for everything...
I know which one was most successful for my dick
For Italy, it should be the human torpedo.
>>416431
>You have a fleet ,you are at war ,use IT,finish.
Top kek, that's a very simplistic view. Keeping ships in harbour still forces the opponent to waste resource on them, and keeps your naval bases secure, whereas just wantonly attacking the enemy results in losing the whole fleet, leaving the theather completely in the enemy's hands. Thr italian navy realized well enough that Britain's naval superiority was such that even if they took down their ships in a 1:1 ratio, it would have still been to Britain's advantage, so they acted appropriately.
>>416447
Also add that Italian Regia Marina was loyal to the king Vittorio Emmanuelle, and not for Mussolini.
Italy did a fucking mess up in the war for political reasons, as the italian common soldier was very brave if they were correctly commanded...
>>416454
>Italian Regia Marina was loyal to the king Vittorio Emmanuelle, and not for Mussolini
Well the whole military was like that. It's one of the reasons Mussolini never considered removing the monarchy.
>>416466
The Italian airforce was almost fascist as a whole, thaks to Balbo.
>>416447
What you say its true but only at the beginning.
When UK realized the way of fighting and how the italians used the fleet they started to do whatever they liked in the med even if italian fleet could really put a finger in uk's eye
Imho italians need much more cordinations between navy/airforce and they kinda got IT when germans supported them with their own airforce .
Naval superiority was not so big and considering strategic islands under italian control the gap could be filled but only if they conquered Malta,for me Malta was the real problem of Italy in the.med. with Malta IT could have been a.different story but they didnt realized IT especially in the beginning PF the war when Malta was not so fortify and equipped.
>>416424
>How so?
>>416447
>Keeping ships in harbour still forces the opponent to waste resource on them
1 battleship sunk
2 battleships damaged
2 heavy cruisers damaged
2 aircraft destroyed on the ground
The rest of the fleet had to GTFO and the Royal Navy's price for all of that was... 2 aircraft shot down. Truly a waste of resources.
For france it gotta be the sucourf
>>416478
>What you say its true but only at the beginning.
After the beginning (first 6-9 months) the navy had so many shortages already that they were forced to take the battleships' fuel to power the convoy escorts, so it's kind of a moot point really.
