Weird, I’m parroting stuff I read and heard. Even the Wikipedia article seem to support my statement.
Sure, but that’s one ship, one war, and purely tactical victories.
What I’m talking about is setting a culture and a set of institutional traditions that carry through the entire nearly 250 years of the Navy’s history to the present day, including the Enterprise’s feats.
That’s a lot more important than a single carrier that did some impressive tactical stuff, in a single war tha the United States was destined to win, regardless of what the Japanese did early in the war.
Which of these would you pick as most important then?
It sounds like you’re going for establishing what went on to be the most powerful Navy ever which leads me to probably the USS Randolph or the USS Bonhomme Richard. As Captain John Paul Jones is considered the father of the US Navy, I would think that is the answer, or perhaps his first ship, the USS Ranger?
I’ll accept the Beagle’s contributions to science, but if you’re going exploration, how does the Endeavour exceed Magellan’s Victoria, Hudson’s Halve Maen (Half Moon) or Columbus’s La Niña?
First 3 I thought of that seem more important.
I nominate IJN Mikasa at the Battle of Tsushima.
The right ship in the right fleet at the right time commanded by the right admiral.
Gave the push that toppled one empire, ushering in the 90-year experiment in Soviet Communism. Coming out announcement of another empire, declaring that colonial imperialism wasn’t just for European powers any more.
Definitively established the superiority of Dreadnought battleships over pre-Dreadnoughts. Also proved the validity of Mahan’s theory of Kantai Kessen (“Decisive Battle Doctrine”) to all the world, setting up Japan’s ultimate downfall in clinging to it even after technology development rendered it outdated.
This statement confuses me, she is listed as a pre-Dreadnaught and her age would appear to confirm that.
Correct. I got carried away and started mixing up facts in my head. Striking that bit. (Leaving it in though because I don’t mind admitting when I’m wrong.)
Great nomination though. That battle should be as important as Trafalgar.
IIIRC Cook had three major voyages, I believe on different ships. Had they all been one ship the extent of his charting locations throughout the Pacific and Indian oceans could easily be considered of greater importance than the voyages of discovery you mentioned. Considering just one of those voyages against Magellan’s and Columbus’ ships which greatly extended human knowledge of the world would be a tough call. I don’t think the Hudson’s voyage is up there with others. I’d certainly place Victoria and the Nina ahead of just one of Cook’s voyages. Altogether, Cook’s complete and accurate charting of the Pacific and Indian oceans in his combined voyages might be considered more important the others.
Columbus’ Voyage change the world though. I don’t see Endeavour on the same scale.
I’ll concede Hudson.
I think the USS Constitution (aka Old Ironsides) had a bigger impact. That ship helped establish the US as a naval power. While the USS Enterprise did great work I do not think if we plucked it out of history anything would have changed much (as regards the position of the US as a world power).
I love the USS Constitution and am very pleased it got rescued. I believe both Roosevelts played a major part in that. But it won one important battle and was one of 5 excellent ships. (One of the first 6 frigates was a crappy ship).
Outside of longevity, what did the USS Constitution actually do?
It destroyed/captured seven ships (in addition to defeating the the British frigate Guerrière):
During the War of 1812, the U.S. Navy frigate Constitution defeats the British frigate Guerrière in a furious engagement off the coast of Nova Scotia. Witnesses claimed that the British shot merely bounced off the Constitution‘s sides, as if the ship were made of iron rather than wood. By the war’s end, “Old Ironsides” destroyed or captured seven more British ships. The success of the USS Constitution against the supposedly invincible Royal Navy provided a tremendous boost in morale for the young American republic. - SOURCE
I think honorable mention should be given to Captain John Paul Jones and the USS Ranger. They seemed to punch above their weight and had great success.
The USS Chesapeake wasn’t so much crappy as just unlucky. In peacetime, she was the humiliated victim of a British act of war and bad leadership. At the start of the war she was only short 6 guns compared to the other big American frigates and she did capture several British merchantmen before being captured by an exact peer with a far more seasoned crew.
The Constitution and her sister ships were without doubt a clever and innovative use of the US’s limited naval resources to provide US merchant shipping some degree of protection from the Royal Navy. But her naval significance on a global scale doesn’t amount to much outside of playing a role in the formative nation-building mythology of the US. The US super-frigates success vs various RN 5th Rate frigates (Guerriere, Shannon, and a few others that aren’t coming to mind at the moment) was important to the US, embarrassing for the Royal Navy, and globally significant only in that the US was going to become a global power a hundred years later.
The clue is in the classification of the RN opponents. 5th Rates are so-called because there were 4 ratings of ships above them, each significantly more powerful than the last. A 4th Rate would decisively defeat a 5th Rate, a 3rd Rate would decisively defeat a 4th Rate, etc. Constitution was somewhere between 4th and 5th Rate in the RN rating scheme, and might have put up a respectable showing against a 4th Rate just because there were in 1812 very few 4th Rates in the RN’s battle order and those few were all very old. The American frigates survived against the Royal Navy Ships of the Line by never getting anywhere near them.
The Royal Navy had over 100 3rd Rate or better.
It’s a bit weird watching Americans talk about Constitution. She and her sisters were important vessels that achieved great things. But it’s a bit like, say, suppose Argentina had decided to attack some peripheral US interests in 1943. They build some overweight heavy cruisers with 10" main armament and sink a couple New Orleans-class USN 8" heavy cruisers. The US has considerably larger fish to fry and this hypothetical conflict ends in negotiated settlement without the Argentinian cruisers ever engaging an enemy capital ship. Then two centuries later, when Argentina has become a global superpower and remembers this minor side-conflict during WWII as a formative part of its history, in a discussion of important naval vessels the Argentinians are all “The Montivideo was the greatest naval vessel of all time. She embarrassed the mighty American navy!” And everyone else is saying, “Ummmm, Iowa class? Rodney class? Bismark? Yamato?”
Well, the OP’s question was, “What was the most important Navy Ship of all time?”
There are several ways to approach that:
- What ship sunk the most other ships (probably USS Enterprise)
- What ship was the most advanced for its time (probably HMS Dreadnaught)
- What ship had the biggest effect on the country that built it (probably USS Constitution or HMS Victory)
That is certainly not an exhaustive list…feel free to add and/or correct it.
It occurred to me that the Monitor and Merrimack should probably be counted here.
I’ll nominate the USS Tang as being representative of the US submarine service as a whole in WWII. A small (1,470 tons) relatively expendable boat, she was the most successful US submarine of the war, being credited with sinking 33 ship of 116,454 tons during her five war patrols in her short lifetime; she barely eeked out a year in commission from 15 October 1943 to her loss on 24 October 1944. The cause of her loss is also a sad illustration of the horrible handicaps US submarines operated under during WWII, she was sunk by her own circular running torpedo.
The silent service didn’t do most of its fighting in dramatic battles worthy of being given names, they carried out a constant attritional war against the Japanese Navy and merchant marine that in the end resulted in them being the number one cause of losses for both naval and merchant shipping by Japan during the war, as can be seen in the Joint Army–Navy Assessment Committee’s post-war tabulation.