# Most Revolutionary Naval Vessel of the 20th Century **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 15, 2008, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-revolutionary-naval-vessel-of-the-20th-century/468027 "2008-10-15T13:16:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Cicero](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cicero/32/3594_2.png) [@Cicero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cicero)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2008, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-revolutionary-naval-vessel-of-the-20th-century/468027/1 "2008-10-15T13:16:17Z")
Watching the History channel today, and there was a claim it was the USS Nautilus. That’s fine, but I thought the Dreadnought would probably be a better choice. After the Nautilus there were still conventional submarines (and still being built) but after Dreadnought all pre- Dreadnoughts were immediately obsolete. I was trying to think of aircraft carriers but I can’t see one that immediately changed everything. Offers? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2008, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-revolutionary-naval-vessel-of-the-20th-century/468027/2 "2008-10-15T13:23:35Z")
I’d say HMS Ark Royal (the original one), as it laid the blueprint for the modern aircraft carrier, but it didn’t change things **overnight** - aircraft technology had to catch up, of course. HMS Dreadnought was a milestone in the history of the battleship, but as soon as Ark Royal was launched, dreadnoughts were on their own way to obsolescence. ---
**Author:** ![KneadToKnow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kneadtoknow/32/3999_2.png) [@KneadToKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneadToKnow)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2008, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-revolutionary-naval-vessel-of-the-20th-century/468027/3 "2008-10-15T13:28:02Z")
> [@Cicero](#): > > After the Nautilus there were still conventional submarines (and still being built) but after Dreadnought all pre- Dreadnoughts were immediately obsolete. Isn’t that like saying that the atomic bomb wasn’t important because we not only still use but still make conventional weapons? ---
**Author:** ![Cicero](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cicero/32/3594_2.png) [@Cicero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cicero)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2008, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-revolutionary-naval-vessel-of-the-20th-century/468027/4 "2008-10-15T13:32:38Z")
I suppose we still make dumb bombs but even that is being overtaken- no longer will you thousands of bombers blowing up cattle. RNATB\_ I agree- the aircraft carrier did make a change in the construction of fleets but that may not have been evident with the Ark Royal- it was possibly only after Midway that it was realised the carrier was the queen of the seas. (Possibly Taranto or the Coral Sea). ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2008, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-revolutionary-naval-vessel-of-the-20th-century/468027/5 "2008-10-15T14:01:53Z")
> [@Cicero](#): > > I suppose we still make dumb bombs but even that is being overtaken- no longer will you thousands of bombers blowing up cattle. > > RNATB\_ I agree- the aircraft carrier did make a change in the construction of fleets but that may not have been evident with the Ark Royal- it was possibly only after Midway that it was realised the carrier was the queen of the seas. (Possibly Taranto or the Coral Sea). Admittedly, it didn’t make much of an impact _itself_, but I was under the impression that everyone else cribbed their carrier designs from it - so the battle in the Pacific was being fought with giant Ark Royals. I could be wrong on this - I’m a dabbler in military history, and I know much less about ships than I do about aircraft. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2008, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-revolutionary-naval-vessel-of-the-20th-century/468027/6 "2008-10-15T14:07:26Z")
You want revolutionary? How about ships powered by the wind using rotating cylinders: > **[Culture and Entertainment - Movie, TV, and Video Game Reviews](https://www.popularmechanics.com/culture/)** > > Get the latest on movie releases, new tv shows, and video games from the editors of Popular Mechanics. > **[Wrong shelf. | UC Berkeley Library](https://www.lib.berkeley.edu/404)** The idea was big in the 20s, then disappeared. But there’s some new interest in them, apparently > **[Open Learning](https://www.open.edu/openlearn/)** [http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.300.html](http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.300.html) > **[Rotor ship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flettner_ship)** > > A rotor ship is a type of ship designed to use the Magnus effect for propulsion. The ship is propelled, at least in part, by large powered vertical rotors, sometimes known as rotor sails. German engineer Anton Flettner was the first to build a ship that attempted to tap this force for propulsion, and ships using his type of rotor are sometimes known as Flettner ships. > The Magnus effect is a force acting on a spinning body in a moving airstream, which produces a force perpendicular to both the di... ---
**Author:** ![Cicero](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cicero/32/3594_2.png) [@Cicero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cicero)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2008, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-revolutionary-naval-vessel-of-the-20th-century/468027/7 "2008-10-15T14:27:29Z")
Yes, but what effect did it have on the fleets? ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2008, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-revolutionary-naval-vessel-of-the-20th-century/468027/8 "2008-10-15T14:50:18Z")
> [@](#): > > Yes, but what effect did it have on the fleets? If you’re asking about the Flettner ships, then: a.) You didn’t ask about _most influential_ – you said _revolutionary_. In particular, you didn’t specify that it had to have influyence on fleets. b.) As I say, it’s a technology that was developed, then dropped, and now looks as if it might be gaining a new life. Ask again in a few years, and maybe it will have had considerable influence on merchant or even military ships. ---
**Author:** ![KneadToKnow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kneadtoknow/32/3999_2.png) [@KneadToKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneadToKnow)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2008, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-revolutionary-naval-vessel-of-the-20th-century/468027/9 "2008-10-15T14:56:54Z")
> [@Cicero](#): > > I suppose we still make dumb bombs but even that is being overtaken- no longer will you thousands of bombers blowing up cattle. If you weren’t responding to me, my apologies, but I don’t understand what this has to do with my comment. I mentioned the atomic bomb v. conventional weapons not dumb bombs v. (I suppose) smart bombs. EDIT: In short, my thoughts are summed up well by **Cal** ’s comment: > [@](#): > > You didn’t ask about most influential – you said revolutionary. ---
**Author:** ![slaphead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@slaphead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slaphead)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2008, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-revolutionary-naval-vessel-of-the-20th-century/468027/10 "2008-10-15T16:43:36Z")
> [@Cicero](#): > > Offers? So presumably you’re after a 20th century version of the [Turbinia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbinia)? That’s pretty tough, given the amount of evolution of 19th-century concepts that went on in the 20th century. I would be inclined to say that the [Type XXI](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_XXI_U-boat) u-boats were more revolutionary than the Nautilus - they made the switch to being all-underwater with only the occasional surfacing, and the Nautilus then started taking that principle to extremes. I’d go for the Ark Royal or maybe the USS Long Beach - first all-missile ship (unless you want to go for the USS Gyatt as the first missle-equipped ship) ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2008, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-revolutionary-naval-vessel-of-the-20th-century/468027/11 "2008-10-15T16:49:14Z")
If we’re not sticking to strictly military ships I would say that the _Trieste_ was pretty revolutionary. If we are I would go with the _Ohio_ or the _Enterprise/Nimitz_ (i.e., nuclear) carriers. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2008, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-revolutionary-naval-vessel-of-the-20th-century/468027/12 "2008-10-15T16:50:58Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Admittedly, it didn’t make much of an impact _itself_, but I was under the impression that everyone else cribbed their carrier designs from it - so the battle in the Pacific was being fought with giant Ark Royals. > > I could be wrong on this - I’m a dabbler in military history, and I know much less about ships than I do about aircraft. No, the 1917 version of the HMS Ark Royal was a seaplane carrier. The first flush deck carrier was the HMS Argus, I think. [HMS Argus (I49) - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Argus_(I49)) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2008, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-revolutionary-naval-vessel-of-the-20th-century/468027/13 "2008-10-15T17:01:08Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > No, the 1917 version of the HMS Ark Royal was a seaplane carrier. > > The first flush deck carrier was the HMS Argus, I think. [HMS Argus (I49) - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Argus_(I49)) According to Wikipedia, the 1914 AR’s complement was five seaplanes and two deck aircraft. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2008, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-revolutionary-naval-vessel-of-the-20th-century/468027/14 "2008-10-15T17:04:45Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > According to Wikipedia, the 1914 AR’s complement was five seaplanes and two deck aircraft. The deck aircraft could not be recovered onboard. I think the pilots were expected to bail out (and get picked up after a swim), or fly to a land base. Edit: The pattern that the future followed was the flush deck carrier, which the old Ark Royal was not. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2008, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-revolutionary-naval-vessel-of-the-20th-century/468027/15 "2008-10-15T17:08:47Z")
As a former submarine officer, I’m probably biased, so take the following with a grain of salt. I would go with the _Nautilus_. It was the first true submarine, freed from the necessity of having to surface or go to periscope depth in order to recharge the batteries. (Note that the _Nautilus_ still had the traditional V-shaped hull designed for cruising on the surface; the teardrop-shaped hull had to wait for the conventionally powered _Albacore_, and the _Skipjack_ was the first sub to combine nuclear power with the teardrop hull optimized for underwater cruising. Nevertheless, it was the nuclear powered propulsion alone that accounted for the revolutionary aspect of the modern submarine.) We have never had a major naval battle since the era of the modern submarine, but in a true no-holds-barred shooting war, submarines would finally come into their own. Once hostilities ensued, I figure that every surface combatant on both sides would be sunk in about 15 minutes. The only naval vessels left would be submarines. Much of the conventional wisdom regarding submarines seems to still have the WWII-era fleet boats in mind (i.e. slow-running submarines hiding from destroyers, popping up to launch salvos of straight-running torpedoes). While there have been great advances in ASW (anti-submarine warfare) technology since WWII, the advantages gained by the submarine have far outstripped those. The first indication that a typical surface vessel would have that a hostile submarine is in the area is the large explosion. Modern torpedoes have homing capability, and modern subs do not have to view the target with a periscope or use active sonar. Modern nuclear submarines do not have to wait for their targets to get within range. Their range is unlimited, and they also have a great speed advantage. Finally, in being submerged continuously, they have the ultimate stealth advantage. The Soviets/Russians and the Chinese realize this, which is why their naval efforts in recent decades have emphasized submarine construction. And the most effective defense against a modern submarine is another submarine. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2008, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-revolutionary-naval-vessel-of-the-20th-century/468027/16 "2008-10-15T17:16:07Z")
> [@robby](#): > > We have never had a major naval battle since the era of the modern submarine, but in a true no-holds-barred shooting war, submarines would finally come into their own. The Falklands might fit that a little bit… > **[Falklands War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War)** > > Operation Corporate > The Falklands War (Spanish: Guerra de las Malvinas) was a ten-week undeclared war between Argentina and the United Kingdom in 1982 over two British Overseas Territories in the South Atlantic: the Falkland Islands and its territorial dependency, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. The conflict began on 2 April 1982, when Argentina invaded and occupied the Falkland Islands, followed by the invasion of South Georgia the next day. On 5 April the British government dis... > **[ARA General Belgrano](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano)** > > ARA General Belgrano (C-4) was an Argentine Navy light cruiser in service from 1951 until 1982. Originally commissioned by the U.S. Navy as USS Phoenix, she saw action in the Pacific theatre of World War II before being sold to Argentina. The vessel was the second to have been named after the Argentine founding father Manuel Belgrano (1770–1820). The first vessel was a 7,069-ton armoured cruiser completed in 1896. > She was sunk on 2 May 1982 during the Falklands War by the Royal Navy submarine ... ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2008, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-revolutionary-naval-vessel-of-the-20th-century/468027/17 "2008-10-15T17:16:20Z")
The USS Nautilus (the nuke one) was a good choice. Speaking from a military point of view that is. The Nautilus started an era of stealth ships limited in range only by the amount of food they can carry. It’s pretty hard to imagine a weapon system more deadly or more stealthy than a SSBN. ---
**Author:** ![633squadron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/6/ee59a6/32.png) [@633squadron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/633squadron)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2008, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-revolutionary-naval-vessel-of-the-20th-century/468027/18 "2008-10-15T17:29:45Z")
> [@Cicero](#): > > Watching the History channel today, and there was a claim it was the USS Nautilus. That’s fine, but I thought the Dreadnought would probably be a better choice. Can’t decide on one, but here’s my list in descending order: [ol] [li]USS George Washington. A nuclear warhead ballistic missile submarine is WMD that you can’t realistically defend against. It made bomber fleets obsolete, and pretty much made land-based missiles outmoded.[/li][li]Nautilus. As others have said, a true submarine is a nightmare for a surface fleet. Submarines themselves revolutionized the rules of war. All the differences between “neutrals” and “combatants” disappeared.[/li][li]Argus - the first true aircraft carrier. Actually it’s hard to choose one particular vessel, but the idea of operating aircraft on the open ocean changed the way that navies fight and protect cargo.[/li][/ol] ---
**Author:** ![paperbackwriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/53a042/32.png) [@paperbackwriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/paperbackwriter)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2008, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-revolutionary-naval-vessel-of-the-20th-century/468027/19 "2008-10-15T18:07:39Z")
> [@Cicero](#): > > That’s fine, but I thought the Dreadnought would probably be a better choice. > > After the Nautilus there were still conventional submarines (and still being built) but after Dreadnought all pre- Dreadnoughts were immediately obsolete. The problem with giving this title to the _Dreadnought_ is that she wasn’t nearly as clean a break with previous shps as the _Nautilus_ was in terms of usage or capablilities. The later pre-Dreadnoughts were very nearly all-big-gun ships, for example, and the _Dreadnought_ herself was not the first all-big-gun ship ordered (the USS _South Carolina_(BB-26) was designed earlier but construction proceded so slowly that _Dreadnought_ beat her into the water). In other words, the idea was one whose time had come and was being implemented by multiple navies. Also, the deployment of dreadnoughts was essentially the same as other line-of-battle ships all the way back to the 16th century. In contrast, not only was _Nautilus_ ahead of her time (the earliest SSN in the Soviet Navy was launched 5 years later) but also she was capable of things that even the Type XXI boats weren’t, like traveling under the Artic ice pack or staying submerged until the food ran out. These are truly game-breaking capabilities. ---
**Author:** ![Rapier42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/90db22/32.png) [@Rapier42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rapier42)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2008, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-revolutionary-naval-vessel-of-the-20th-century/468027/20 "2008-10-15T18:13:12Z")
Not a historian, but is there a case to be made for the first nuclear powered vessel? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-revolutionary-naval-vessel-of-the-20th-century/468027.md?page=2)