Top products from r/WarshipPorn

We found 50 product mentions on r/WarshipPorn. We ranked the 156 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/WarshipPorn:

u/Scott_J · 1 pointr/WarshipPorn

You're welcome. If your interest in the Pacific theater is broader, you may also consider "Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway" by Jonathan Parshall and Anthony Tully. It revisits the battle of Midway from the Japanese perspective and is excellent.

Other extremely good works are John B. Lundstrom's The First Team: Pacific Naval Air Combat from Pearl Harbor to Midway and The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign: Naval Fighter Combat from August to November 1942. Despite the appearance of these titles, they are not dry academic works, but full of interesting facts and quite fun reading.

Hell to Pay: Operation Downfall and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-194 by D. M. Giangreco is an excellent work examining the end of the war in the Pacific, what the impact of strategic bombing was (nuclear and conventional), how the US and her allies planned to invade Kyushu and Honshu, how much the Japanese knew and how far developed their preparations were, and reasonable estimates of how events would play out if the invasions had actually been carried out. He examines how the details of each sides' plans would play out, the impact of nuclear weapons in the tactical role, how actual weather conditions and events would impact the land and sea portions of the campaigns and more.

I own all of the above and recommend them whole-heartedly.

A brief search also gave videos of several speeches/talks by Jon Parshall, but I haven't viewed them yet. Given the quality of his and Tully's work in Shattered Sword, I plan to watch each of them now.

u/mookiemookie · 1 pointr/WarshipPorn

Werner shall we say embellished a few details in Iron Coffins. Still a great read, though. If you liked that one, try out Steel Boats, Iron Hearts, written by a crewman on U-505, which now resides in a museum in Chicago. Another great sub story was Thunder Below, which I actually thought was so great they could make it into a movie.

u/When_Ducks_Attack · 4 pointsr/WarshipPorn

I've never found a truly good single-volume book on the design/development of the aircraft carrier in general, but I've found a couple that are excellent for specific nations.

US Aircraft Carriers: A Design History by Norman Friedman is... well, the history of US Aircraft Carrier design, from pre-WWII to the supercarriers.

British Aircraft Carriers: Design, Development and Service Histories by David Hobbs is the same thing as the previously mentioned book, but covering things like seaplane carriers, amphibious assault ships, and even Project Habbakuk (gee, why would that interest me?) as well as traditional flat-tops.

u/tspangle88 · 10 pointsr/WarshipPorn

Great picture! If you are interested in Constitution and her sisters, I highly recommend the book "Six Frigates".

u/F1NN1NG · 25 pointsr/WarshipPorn

Neptune's Inferno, by James D. Hornfischer gives a pretty in-depth depiction of what it was like, using interviews with veterans from both sides.

Most local libraries have a copy if you're interested.

u/locke-in-a-box · 3 pointsr/WarshipPorn

There is a really good book "Thunder Below!" written by Admiral Eugene B. Fluckey who was the captain of that boat during ww2. He toured the boat once, which was cool.

u/JimDandy_ToTheRescue · 2 pointsr/WarshipPorn

Sorry, knew it. Though it is certainly an obscure incident. Hopefully someone will have learned something from our exchange!

Good relevant reading material:

u/ididnotdoitever · 4 pointsr/WarshipPorn

Dude, do yourself a favor and pick up a copy of this book. One of the best reads ever.

u/leadfoot323 · 6 pointsr/WarshipPorn

That is awesome! I'm currently reading "Castles of Steel" on my Kindle so any photos in the book don't really turn out. But this is great. It's incredible to see the Imperial German fleet all together like this.

u/FelixCat6 · 3 pointsr/WarshipPorn

Quite an interesting story with this one. I would recommend this book, written by Dick O'Kane, her Exec at one time. He went on to captain USS Tang, an equally interesting ship. there's also a book by him about his experiences on the Tang, which I also recommend.

Source -

u/irishjihad · 3 pointsr/WarshipPorn

If you haven't read it, "Beans, Bullets, and Black Oil", is a fascinating, if somewhat dry, account of how we were able to project our power across the Pacific. Hopefully our current strategists and logisticians have reread it a few times.

u/KapitanKurt · 5 pointsr/WarshipPorn

Yes, there's a big distinction. Here's a link that scratches the surface of dreadnought background & development to get you started.

If you get really curious, here's two books that round out the subject of how dreadnoughts fit into naval history...

u/grendelt · 3 pointsr/WarshipPorn

That sounds cool. Definitely gonna grab a copy.

Here's the Amazon link to "Blind Man's Bluff" for those that are interested in it.

u/Phippz · 2 pointsr/WarshipPorn

Dick O'Kane's (XO for Wahoo's first few patrols) book is a great read. His book about his time as commander of the USS Tang is even better.

u/SilverbackRibs · 2 pointsr/WarshipPorn

This reminds me of one of my favorite books growing up: "Weapons" from the Diagram Group.

u/Giant_Slor · 1 pointr/WarshipPorn

[Ship of Ghosts] ( is well worth a read if you want a firsthand account of the godawful situation faced by ABDA forces in SE Asia and the DEI area in early 1942. The account of the Houston and HMAS Perth's final battle is truly gripping reading.

u/jorgecomacho · 9 pointsr/WarshipPorn

Also worth looking at Castles of Steel

That and Dreadnought by the same author are my favorites of the era.

u/mithikx · 7 pointsr/WarshipPorn

I second reading The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors, I grabbed the audiobook to listen on my commute and found it an enjoyable listen/read.

u/dontmasturbate · 4 pointsr/WarshipPorn

If you liked Red Storm Rising, I would suggest Ghost Fleet as your next read.

u/TanyIshsar · 3 pointsr/WarshipPorn

A beautiful photo for a fantastically crewed submarine.

For those of you that don't know her story, Thunder Below! was written by her skipper Eugene B. Fluckey and tells the tale of those 8 Battle Stars among other things.

u/nastylittleman · 1 pointr/WarshipPorn

Neptune's Inferno was excellent, but not quite as riveting as Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors.

Got started on At All Costs, but haven't yet dug in.

Whadda ya got for me?

u/PlainTrain · 1 pointr/WarshipPorn

Top left is a Treaty cruiser. Top right might be Alaska or Baltimore.

The image is from Norman Friedman's U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History

u/Porkgazam · 2 pointsr/WarshipPorn
This book is really good too, regarding the IJN and USN fights during the Guadalcanal campaign.

u/Timmyc62 · 1 pointr/WarshipPorn

Massie does have a great way of writing - I don't think there's a single person who dislikes his work. That said, during my studies I have encountered military history profs who strongly suggest against using his work as the sole source due to Massie's lack of primary source evidence/scholarly approach. A good supplement would be Paul Halpern's A Naval History of World War One.

u/marty4286 · 2 pointsr/WarshipPorn

Friedman's US Carriers: An Illustrated Design History has a chapter on the postwar upgrades for the Essex, Midway, and even CVE classes, including what was carried out, what remained plans, and the bureaucratic processes that drove it all.

For example, there was actually a postwar proposal to give CVEs angled flight decks, but they couldn't drum up money for it:

u/kalliolla · 2 pointsr/WarshipPorn

Found the picture here, and someone further down in the comments there seems to identify the book it came from as this one.

u/PinguRambo · 6 pointsr/WarshipPorn


It was weirdly hard to find the title translation...

u/beachedwhale1945 · 1 pointr/WarshipPorn

>No, I claimed that stripping off the TDS from South Dakota gave a hull nearly the same size as Baltimore in length and beam. Not volume, not draught, not anything else. 3d volume is irrelevant in a comparison of the 2d 1d beam measurements.

You asked why they had “the same hull size”. I have showed you they did not. You can either admit you were wrong or continue trying to claim why you were right when you weren’t.

>>But for the Iowa class the US decided to focus on speed, an extra six knots, accepting the protection penalty of a smaller immunity zone (due to new shells) and a fine hull near No. 1 turret, making it vulnerable to torpedoes, among other sacrifices.

>The design and development of the ships was undertaken with the knowledge a new shell was coming, but to claim that the then unknown performance of the new shell was a major design factor in Iowa is incorrect.

Here is the Amazon page for Friedman’s US Battleships: An Illustrated Design History. You clearly need to buy and read this. Quoting from page 314:

>Just as the Iowas were being designed, BuOrd adopted a new 2,700-pound, 16-inch shell, a magnificently destructive projectile, which shrank the immunity zone (against the 16in/45) to only 5,300 yards (20,200 to 25,500 yards). A similar shell fired by the Iowa 50-calibre gun would penetrate anywhere except in the band between 23,600 and 27,400 yards. There could be no hope of providing protection against such an attack and yet retain high speed on a reasonable displacement.

>For example, the 12.2-inch sloped belt was equivalent to a vertical thickness of 13.5 inches, as in earlier U.S. battleships. It would have to be thickened to be equivalent to 16.4 inches, and the armor deck increased from 6.2 to 6.75 inches. The net increase in armor weight, including deck armor, would be about 2,300 tons. A July 1940 sketch of a ship equivalent to the Iowa but protected against the heavy shell (and carrying the new 5in/54 secondary gun) showed a displacement of 51,500 tons. Even to hold to this figure, the hull had to be filled out to such an extent that the 212,000SHP of the Iowa would suffice for a little beyond 28 knots.

In other words, the designers accepted protection trade offs for the high speed requirements. They could not accept many improvements due to the weight penalties, but as with the South Dakotas did adopt a thicker turret faceplate, and due to the poor performance of US Class A face hardened armor against large projectiles (due the scaling effect, the thick hardened face was a detriment against larger projectiles, see Nathan Okun’s analyses) this was actually Class B homogeneous armor, though this required thinning the turret sides. Despite the extra year before they were ordered, Missouri, Wisconsin, Kentucky, and Illinois did not include additional belt or deck protection due to the weight penalties. These four did include thicker forward and aft bulkheads and barbettes, the cost of 132 tons being negligible, while the last two ships had “detail improvements…expected to improve performance by 20 percent and would also reduce flooding in the event the system was penetrated”. They could not take any more without sacrificing speed.

>It was a compromise to get the speed they wanted out of all of the fast battleships, not just Iowa.

Of course, but it was raised again for these ships with a proposed blister that would have cost 1.5 knots. “The General Board rejected it. Ten thousand tons had been spent to buy six knots; the General Board was not going to surrender a quarter of that gain.” This emphasizes just how important speed was for these ships.

>The names of battleships 40 and 44 were swapped 1916/7 to allow the state of California the honor of building it’s own battleship.

Good eye.

>Here is a source direct from NHHC giving the normal displacement as-built at 32k tons

Normal =/= standard displacement. Normal adds fuel oil, and when that is included the displacement rises to 31,660.3 tons.

This is the weight table for Mississippi as completely, pulled directly from Friedman.

| | Normal |
| Hull | 13,769.4 |
| Hull Fittings | 1,480.3 |
| Protection | 8,497.5 |
| Machinery (dry) | 2,435.4 |
| Armament | 1,859.3 |
| Equipment & Outfit | 404.0 |
| Total Light Ship | 28,455.9 (27891.9) |
| Ammunition | 1,343.7 |
| Machinery Liquids | 153.0 |
| Complement | 119.7 |
| Stores & PW | 445.1 |
| Standard Displacement | 29,953.3 |
| RFW | 225.2|
| Fuel Oil | 1,481.8 |
| Displacement | 31,660.3 |

Tell me why I should distrust this source and yours are better.

>The individual mounting/turrets for the 14”/50 were anywhere between 150 to almost 300 tons heavier than the 14”/45s on Pennsylvania. Lowballing the 50 cal and highballing the 45 cal, the difference is 150 tons. For four mount/turret groups, that’s 600 tons of added weight without factoring anything else in.

Friedman explicitly states protection includes “the weight of barbettes and turrets [italics in original], both of which could be substantial. Thus the listing for battery includes only the guns and their mountings”. He only includes data for the full load column for Pennsylvania, at least until light ship, which were 8,422 tons for protection and 1,658 tons for armament, total 10,080 tons. For New Mexico pulling from the full load column these were 8,489, 1,900, and 10,389 tons. Clearly they offset the heavier turrets, and while Friedman doesn’t provide much detail he does mention the secondaries were moved and “detail weight economies” allowed some armor changes. The other weights are similarly negligible, but his weight table does explicitly state 29,157.8 tons was the standard displacement in normal condition.

>>Pick a position.

>I have. The half assed armored conning towers sported by every US cruiser from the New Orleans to the Oregon City classes (excluding Atlanta and derivatives) was a waste of weight.

I meant pick a position of in they existed. You went from “they didn’t have conning towers” to “they did”. Pick one. Whether they were necessary or not is a different discussion to whether they existed in the first place.

>That’s not what you said earlier:

>…whereas cruisers often discarded a magazine belt entirely for internal box protection.

>Again, which ships entirely dispensed with the belt in favor of internal box armor only?

Every single one of those cruisers discarded a MAGAZINE belt for internal box protection. All had a machinery belt, but all discarded the aft magazine belt for internal box protection and the older ships also discarded the forward belt. That is exactly what I said earlier.

>The diagrams I’ve found for Iowa’s torpedo belt all call it NVNC, which leads me to believe that they may either be copied from the same erroneous reference, or wires have been crossed since then.

You’re looking at Japanese drawings, as NVNC was the homogeneous armor used for Yamato’s similar protection (New Vickers Non-Cemented).

>I’m inclined to belive it was Class B, as STS was typically used in the structure of the ship itself, with Class B being used for non-structural components.

I’ve stated my reasons for STS, as Class B was generally used for armor protection above water. The TDS was structural for warships.

u/flemingozilla · 10 pointsr/WarshipPorn

I think this picture is attribute to the wrong battle. To me, this looks exactly like a Kongo-class battlecruiser.

**Edit: made an easier comparison picture. Also I reverse searched the image and didn't see any websites that I would take as a "credible" source. However, the image is reportedly used in a book about the battle by Anthony Tully, but can not actually be attributed to the battle.

u/haze_gray · 13 pointsr/WarshipPorn

All mine are WWII books.

The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors - Story of the USS Samuel B. Roberts, a Destroyer Escort, and a David vs. Goliath battle between a small US fleet and a huge Japanese fleet.

Neptune's Inferno - story of the USN at Guadalcanal.

Ship of Ghosts - Story of the USS Houston

Clash of The Carriers - About the Marianas Turkey Shoot

In Harms Way - The story of the USS Indianapolis, a crusier that delivered the core of the nuclear bombs used on Japan, and the secret sinking and horrible story of her survivors.

Shattered Sword - a new story of the battle of midway.

u/EvanHarper · 2 pointsr/WarshipPorn

> The idea—to create a make-believe battle squadron that could pass itself off at sea as real—was entirely Churchill’s. On October 21, [1914] he wrote to Prince Louis, then still First Sea Lord:

>>It is necessary to construct without delay a dummy fleet; ten merchant vessels . . . mocked up to represent battleships. . . . The actual size need not correspond exactly, as it is notoriously difficult to judge the size of vessels at sea, and frequently even destroyers are mistaken for cruisers. We are bearing in mind particularly aerial and periscope observations where deception is much more easy. It is not necessary that the structures be strong enough to stand rough weather. Very little metal would be required and practically the whole work should be executed in wood and canvas. . . . Even when the enemy knows we have such a fleet . . . he will always be in doubt as to which is the real and which is the dummy fleet. . .

> [...] before the end of the month, steamships were commandeered and brought to the Harland and Wolff shipyard in Belfast. [...] Within a week, wood and canvas structures were reproducing guns, turrets, boats, tripod masts, and bridges. Because a liner rises higher out of the water than a battleship, the merchantmen were filled with thousands of tons of ballast to push the hulls lower. The shapes of bows and sterns were altered. False funnels were added and were equipped with fireplaces to burn combustible materials that would emit thick clouds of smoke. Navy anchors were made of wood or were simply painted on the bows.

> [...]

> No one was fooled. Real battleship squadrons were usually made up of generally homogeneous ships. But when the dummies came together, some were twice the size of the others. Their speeds varied greatly. Some could make 15 knots, others 10, others only 7, and, as a squadron’s speed must be that of the slowest member, 7 knots became the speed at which the dummies could steam together. A 7-knot squadron could not operate with the 20-knot Grand Fleet. “The ships,” said Jellicoe, “could not accompany the fleet to sea and it was very difficult to find a use for them in home waters.” The suggestion that they be used as bait was rejected. An encounter with the enemy would have led to massacre.

> [...] At the end of April, the dummy Queen Mary was sent to patrol off New York City as a message to the German liners interned in the harbor that, if they violated their internment and tried to break out, a British battle cruiser was waiting to gobble them up. The assault on the Dardanelles suggested another use; the dummy battle cruisers Indomitable and Tiger departed Loch Ewe on February 19. To avoid being seen, they passed through the Strait of Gibraltar at midnight, and they were forbidden to enter the harbors of Gibraltar or Malta where they could be studied close up. The dummy Invincible followed six weeks later. Churchill hoped that by sending them to the Mediterranean, where they might be seen at a distance, they might “mislead the Germans as to the margin of British strength in home waters” and tempt the enemy to come out and do battle in the North Sea. The Turks did misidentify the dummy Tiger and reported her to a German submarine. On May 30, she was hit and sunk by torpedo and four British seamen drowned. A British midshipman with the Dardanelles fleet found grim humor in the event, imagining the U-boat captain “astonished to see the surviving crew clinging to the floating wooden turrets.”

> Thereafter, the curtain came down on the theatrical. Once Churchill left the Admiralty, the dummy fleet, which had cost Britain £1 million and four lives and Germany a single torpedo, quickly disappeared.

from Massie, Castles of Steel