# The end of the battleship



## The Basket (Jun 21, 2021)

So when did the Battleship have it's day?

What year? what event?

Would the battleship have use today?

Too expensive?
Too precious?
Too vulnerable to air attack?
Too many crew?


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 21, 2021)

The Basket said:


> So when did the Battleship have it's day?
> 
> What year? what event?



Assuming you're talking about dreadnoughts, Jutland comes to mind, and it goes into the early part of WWII. I think both Pearl Harbor and the fate of Force Z were the big wake-up calls for the Gun Club, but there were slugfests both before and after those events (_Bismarck_ before, _Washington_ vs _Kirishima_ and Surigao Strait afterwards, though the latter was more a mugging than a battle.)

I don't think it can really be pinpointed to one event, but 1941/2 marked the change, it seems to me.


The Basket said:


> Would the battleship have use today?



Sure, in some circumstances, but they'd be very expensive to build or rebuild, and then operate, while the guns themselves suffer limits that modern guided weaponry don't.

Building a new class of BBG would probably get killed off early in the procurement process from a cost/benefit analysis.



The Basket said:


> Too expensive?
> Too precious?
> Too vulnerable to air attack?
> Too many crew?



All of the above.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 22, 2021)

They would be great to have, if already built and paid for. The Iowas are national monuments now (I think) and can't be touched. If you have them then great. If you want to get a nation's attention, parking one of those monsters off its coast will do it. They're damned impressive. Sometimes ya' just gotta' really stand off and SMASH something even if it takes a while. 
With that said, they're too costly in personnel and resources. The lead time for a new one would be at least that of a carrier. If a new build, modern tech has to be designed in. It wouldn't be your dad's battleship. The new BB would be designed with a crap load of air defense systems and missile chuckers. I doubt it would be any more vulnerable than a CVN if we compare ship to ship, sans air group. What are we using for propulsion? For the resources required, there are better uses. 

I agree with The Thumpster. I just like talking battleships.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 22, 2021)

The exact end of the age of Battleships would be hard to pinpoint.
The last hurrah would have been the battle of Surgaio Straight and the demisenof the Yamato showed how modern warfare (of the day) had surpassed the age of the battlewagons.

However, the modernized Iowa's showed how potent of a weapon platform they can be. Aside from their 16" guns, they were bristling with Phalinx, Delta Darts, Tomahawks and so on. 
In the 21st century, why nit build a battlewagon using new tech?
The age if the rifled gun may be past, so cast the old basement-diggers aside and load the monster down with the most advanced offensive/defensive tech available.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jun 22, 2021)

If you look at say 1939 and battleships are getting built and super duper battleships are getting designed. So 1939 is certainly a bumper crop plus this is numerous nations not just traditional naval powers. 

Of course, you could point at a single event such as sinking of Yamato and say the Battleship concept was over.

But if you give it a twist then let's say Iowa faces the same air power. Iowa would have better radar and fire control and proximity fuses and was a flak farm plus the escorts and also be faster. So Iowa would have been a stiffer test. Plus the USN would have been able to give air cover so, under these circumstances then Iowa could have survived.

Plus to say battleships are vulnerable but aircraft carriers are even more vulnerable. Plenty of carriers have suffered damage which a battleship could have survived.

Or PoW and Repulse and say those ships were sunk. But then again it showed weakness in terms of better fire control or better flak.

So crazy case in point is Yamashiro and Kirishima. Both were night battles when no airplane is flying so unless you had your own big gun ships then air power is no good then you are vulnerable.

One could argue that Kirov class could have created a new battleship class although relying on missiles rather than big guns

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 23, 2021)

The 2nd phase of the Iowa's when they were reactivated for the last time was the the rear turret was to be replaced with a flight deck and vertical launched tomahawks would be installed. Today equipped with the F-35Cs it would have made a lethal weapon. During the first Gulf War, the US Navy fired hundreds of 5" shells to knock out oil platforms, a single salvo from the 16" would have done the same thing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jun 24, 2021)

The industry that made big guns and big armour plate is gone.

So cost a fortune. So the battleships in it's true form is gone for good.

So it's lasers and ray shields I am afraid.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 24, 2021)

I miss them too. We are living in the dystopian future.


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 24, 2021)

Interesting items relative to when Billy Mitchell sank the Osfriedland:

1. The USN attacked the target ships also, using their best flying boat, the Curtiss F-5, and the bombs hit but did not go off.

2. Mitchell did not bomb the ships. In reality he torpedoed them. The specially made bombs dropped from the Martin MB-2's deliberately did not hit the ships but hit right next to them, caving in the sides like a torpedo hit would. Obviously, this would not work very well with ships that were under way. 

3. Washington Times headlines screamed that Mitchell had proved that battleships were useless and airpower would be the country's main defense. They were right!

4. It's hard to say whether the atomic bomb or the USN's development of the Bat radar guided missile did more to put an end to battleships. Which is worse? One very big bomb or hundreds of PGM's that are launched out of AAA range and don't care if it is day or night? They never got past building the hull of the USS Montana Class, which was like an enlarged Iowa Class with four 16 in turrets.

5. The creation of the USN carrier force was spurred by Mitchell's airpower demo. They really ought to name a carrier after him.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2021)

The Basket said:


> The industry that made big guns and big armour plate is gone.
> 
> So cost a fortune. So the battleships in it's true form is gone for good.
> 
> So it's lasers and ray shields I am afraid.


I am certain that the plate could still be made. They made a super gun in Sheffield in 1990 Supergun affair - Wikipedia so it could be done if anyone wanted to, but why would anyone want to?


----------



## The Basket (Jun 24, 2021)

Mitchell proved you can bomb an obsolete German battleship.

Which wasn't moving. Or shooting back. Or had no escort. Or any damage control. Or any air support.

And if you bomb it enough times it would sink. 

I can be heavy weight boxing champion of the world based on the science of that test.

The Ostfriesland proves nothing at all. Nothing at all.

(Stupid Sexy Flanders)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 24, 2021)

The Basket said:


> The Ostfriesland proves nothing at all. Nothing at all.


It proved it was POSSIABLE.

Probable or even likely is something else. 

It is possible I might win the lottery tomorrow, it is neither likely or probable.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jun 24, 2021)

Airpower....yeah whatever.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 24, 2021)

How many naval targets stay stationary for bombers?

The target practice off Hampton Roads, and that's what it was, shed no more light on combat bombing missions than any other peacetime target practice, except to show that aircraft could deliver explosives onto a stationary target, too.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 24, 2021)

So then, we need to look to WWII to see if Mitchell's theory was valid.

How many ships were sunk by bombs?

We could even go one further: how many _moving_ ships were sunk by bombs?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jun 24, 2021)

Tough one.
Arizona, Tirpitz, Gneisenau, Haruna, 

Off the top of my head.

But they were all stationery.

Roma was hit by a guided bomb. So Roma was the only battleship under way sunk by bombs alone. I think 

Did Mitchell have Fritz X? So no.


----------



## special ed (Jun 24, 2021)

Skip bombing in the PTO was effective but not Mitchel's way.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 24, 2021)

I forgot, was Mikuma scuttled or did she go down from bombs alone?


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 24, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> So then, we need to look to WWII to see if Mitchell's theory was valid.
> 
> How many ships were sunk by bombs?
> 
> We could even go one further: how many _moving_ ships were sunk by bombs?



_Sims,_ with the tanker _Neosho_, plastered by Vals, no Kates attacking. _Cornwall_ and _Dorsetshire_, all Vals. A couple or few Brit ships during the evacuation from Crete, as well. Note that none were sunk by level bombers in those instances, and level bombers sinking anything other than their own bombs was a very rare occasion.

The question, in context, seems to me to be how many _battleships_ were sunk by bombs of any sort, which was, after all, the aim of Mitchell's demonstration, which of course weren't the dive-bombers used to better effect in WWII.

Mitchell's demonstration was almost pointless.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 24, 2021)

Before we go any further, we need to eliminate everything we know that's transpired in the past 80 years and go back to Billy Mitchell's time, when aircraft was still viewed by some, as a novelty. Even after the Great War.

Now, Mitchell was convinced that aircraft (read: aircraft, not a specific type) would one day become a dominant factor in warfare.
The Navy guys laughed at him and the Army guys laughed at him.
He then stated that ships would be vulnerable to bombers - remember, they didn't have D3As, SBDs or Stukas yet, but they had level bombers, so this is what he used.
Keep in mind that he wasn't supposed to prevail in his demonstration regardless if it being stationary or not.
When he sank it, all hell broke loose.

So his point that aircraft can challenge naval assets created a stir in the Battleship club and was a herald of things to come.

Fast forward to the Pacific 1942 and level bombers were most certainly taking their toll on surface shipping.
While they weren't traditionally bombing, they'd were instead, skip-bombing.
And the aircraft being used were B-17s, A-20s, B-25s and so on.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Akuma (Jun 24, 2021)

Let me just drop this pebble into the pond. Technically speaking the battleship era ended with the first reliable torpedos. Skip bombing and Fritz-Xs were the logical progression of launched ordnance until rockets became viable.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 25, 2021)

Well, remember that Battleships and heavy Cruisers had belt-line armor that was designed with torpedoes in mind.

What the armor wasn't able to protect against, was a 500 or 1,000 pound bomb detonating alongside or alongside and beneath the armor, which created a "hydraulic hammer" that would buckle the plating.


----------



## Akuma (Jun 25, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Well, remember that Battleships and heavy Cruisers had belt-line armor that was designed with torpedoes in mind.
> 
> What the armor wasn't able to protect against, was a 500 or 1,000 pound bomb detonating alongside or alongside and beneath the armor, which created a "hydraulic hammer" that would buckle the plating.


All true, but remember, it was because of those belts that the torpedo designers came up with ideas of having the warheads detonate as they passed beneath the hull using the pressure wave same as the bombs alongside. Of course that lead to all the troubles involved in finding reliable sensor systems for the torpedo's to work properly.


----------



## The Basket (Jun 25, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I forgot, was Mikuma scuttled or did she go down from bombs alone?


Mikuma was probably destroyed by her own exploding torpedoes. Mogami launched hers and survived.


----------



## The Basket (Jun 25, 2021)

A battleship is a lot of time money and resources. A destroyer is a row boat in comparison.

So the RN was like at the end of the war, what battleship could be hit by a tallboy and survive? The obvious answer is none or none realistic. So kinda silly spend tons of gold on something that can be one shotted.

The torpedo was not the end of the battleship. Musashi, Yamato, Bismarck all survived torpedo strikes or could have done.

Mission killed by still floaty.

Warspite survived a Fritz X but Warspite could survive a Super Nova so no surprise there.

A battleship was Uber expensive and was no longer an unsinkable bastion of greatness. So it became obsolete due to weapons that were stronger than its armour. And it's big guns were no defence against tallboys or Fritz X. So it has no further use in a missile age.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 25, 2021)

In any weapons system there was a constant ebb and flow between the threats and the ability to deal with threats. 

There is also a constant evolution in the threats just like there the is a constant evolution in the threat of a weapons system like the "Battleship". 

The torpedo was vastly over rated in the years leading up to WW I, Of course some of the ships hit with torpedoes were pretty lousy in terms of torpedo protection, which had nothing to do with belt armor. It had a lot more to do with compartmentation to control flooding after a hit. 

The torpedo need both Gyros and the wet heater engine to become a real threat. and even then results were, shall we say, not very good. Germans fired 89 torpedoes at Jutland and got one hit (?) the British fired a bit less but got a few more hits, but they fired at night and at closer ranges. 

Number of cruisers lost or severely damaged by their own torpedoes exploding in the tubes may exceed the number of enemy ships sunk or severely damaged by cruiser torpedoes? 

Torpedoes tripled their range in the 10-11 years between the Dreadnought and Jutland, warheads may also have gotten bigger, explosives got better. 1890s and very early 1900 torpedoes used wet gun cotton and an explosive. An 1890s "battleship" designed when 220lbs of gun cotton was a large warhead was pretty much doomed when hit with 400-500lb of TNT. 

Problem for the battleship was that new torpedoes could be designed and built and issued during the service life of the Battleship, over matching it's defensive capabilities.

Of course the same could be said for it's armor plate and guns, Ships like the Nagato and Nelson made ships laid down before 1911-12 pretty much targets.


----------



## The Basket (Jun 25, 2021)

It's also annoying but check out how many battleships had sunk after 1900. So the concept of the unsinkable ship was foolish.

So a torpedo strike could be survivable. Better damage control, compartments, more torpedo bulges, and of course countermeasures. It just becomes a risk. So yes this did have an effect as it stops ships from entering enemy harbour and shooting the place up. Blucher can proof that.

But I can zig zag and have destroyer escort and any guidance system can be jammed or spoofed.

One thing that hasn't been said is night. Night is a great leveller as air power couldn't operate at night or in awful weather. So the sinking of Scharnhorst couldn't have been done with airpower. Or Fuso and Yamashiro. The Tokyo Express was another attempt to negate air power.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 25, 2021)

The Basket said:


> A battleship is a lot of time money and resources. A destroyer is a row boat in comparison.
> 
> So the RN was like at the end of the war, what battleship could be hit by a tallboy and survive? The obvious answer is none or none realistic. So kinda silly spend tons of gold on something that can be one shotted.
> 
> ...


That bacon is for HMS Warspite.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 25, 2021)

RE: post 26
Is there any truth to the story that HIJMS Mogami fired a spread of torpedoes and hit five of her own ships?


----------



## Akuma (Jun 25, 2021)

The Basket said:


> A battleship is a lot of time money and resources. A destroyer is a row boat in comparison.
> 
> So the RN was like at the end of the war, what battleship could be hit by a tallboy and survive? The obvious answer is none or none realistic. So kinda silly spend tons of gold on something that can be one shotted.
> 
> ...


When it comes to expense, when building the Yamato, the Japanese thought they were building a battleship when in fact they were creating a national treasure. Good weapons have to be both effective and expendable.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jun 26, 2021)

The Japanese expended Yamato.
They expend it good. 

I heard the Mogami story? Was it Mogami? Could have been some old war tall tales.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jun 26, 2021)

Problem with battleships is time.

If you want a battleship you're waiting.

Yamato was first metal cut 1937 and not fully operation until 1942 so that window is a huge one covering a wide slice of history. So the true air threat against Yamato in 1937 was minimal in comparison to 1942 and lot less than 1945.

If you look at operational carrier aircraft in 1937 than it wasn't any big deal. 

Good example is Shinano which was converted to something which may resemble a navy carrier but her armour and guns were already built. Because they take time to build.

So saying Yamato was obsolete in 1942 is neither here nor there since she wasn't in 1937.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 26, 2021)

The Mogami fired a spread of six Type 93 torpedoes at USS Houston, all missed the American CA, but instead entered Bantam Bay and struck five Japanese vessels: the minesweeper W-2 and four IJA transports: Tatsumo Maru, Honzi Maru, Sakura Maru and Ryujo Maru, which had Lt. General Imamura (command of operations) aboard. He ended up jumping overboard amd swam to shore...

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 26, 2021)

Thank GrauGeist. That was a “story“ that sounded too much like a recycled propaganda claim that became “fact“.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 26, 2021)

It was a wild melé and it was assumed at first that Dutch torpedo boats had attacked, then it was thought an IJN destroyer (Fubuki) had done the deed, but the timing was off and during the inquiry (and you know good and well there was one because of the wet General) the Destroyer was let off the hook.
Then during the salvage operation, it was found to be a Type 93 torpedo, not the Type 90 carried by the Fubuki.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 26, 2021)

I was going to give you an informative for your post but, you know, "wet general". That little tidbit makes the story even better.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 27, 2021)

If I had to pick a moment I would say when the POW and Repulse were sunk. Both were quite fast with plenty of searoom. The POW was modern, with for the time quite a good AA component and they were sunk fairly quickly with few losses. 
Yes there were a number of mitigating factors which I don't intend on dwelling on as most of them would have simply delayed the inevitable. From that moment the world knew that BB's may still have a role, but they needed carrier protection from air attack

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jun 27, 2021)

I have problem with PoW sinking.

RN had already lost a few battleships so why would PoW be different?

Not like after the Alexandria Raid battleships were no longer built for fear of Italian divers.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2021)

Glider said:


> The POW was modern, with for the time* quite a good AA component* and they were sunk fairly quickly with few losses.



There may be some argument as to the AA component. The 5.25 was biased more than bit heavily towards surface fire. yes the AA suite was better than most of the old WW I battleships but it was not anywhere near as good as few other RN ships or the newer American ships. The set up in the Valiant might well have been much better.


----------



## The Basket (Jun 27, 2021)

From my point of view you can see what went wrong.

Not the whole battleship concept is obsolete.

But what went wrong with PoW. Repulse is not a modern battleship.

So if Iowa or Yamato or Vanguard could have survived then that's a KGV problem and not a battleship problem.


----------



## Glider (Jun 27, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> There may be some argument as to the AA component. The 5.25 was biased more than bit heavily towards surface fire. yes the AA suite was better than most of the old WW I battleships but it was not anywhere near as good as few other RN ships or the newer American ships. The set up in the Valiant might well have been much better.


Be fair I did say Quite a good AA component.
As for the 5.25 vs 4.5 or 5in guns debate, without proximity fuses I don't think it would have made much of a difference but I agree 20 x 4.5in would have been better.
In Dec 1941 which is when the POW was sunk the LAA component of the N Carolina was 16 x 1.1in (4 x 4) and 12 0.5in HMG (12 x 1). Compared to the 48 x 2pd (6 x 8), 1 x 40mm, approx 16 x20mm (16 x 1) on the POW, the N Carolina on completion, was poorly defended.

Whatever the differences had they survived the initial attack I still believe it would simply have delayed the inevitable.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 27, 2021)

The Basket said:


> But what went wrong with PoW.



IIRC, the first torpedo to hit PoW ruptured a seal along one of the shafts while it was steaming at speed, allowing one torpedo to flood a significant length of the ship when coupled with a wobbly prop-shaft. Lucky hit combined with a design flaw?

What I've read says the first torpedo would have been fatal for this reason.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jun 27, 2021)

We have concept. The submarine concept is valid even though it had the highest losses in both the German and American armed forces.

If you look at aircraft carrier losses in 1942 they is high but there was no one saying to scrap aircraft carrier.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 27, 2021)

The Basket said:


> We have concept. The submarine concept is valid even though it had the highest losses in both the German and American armed forces.
> 
> If you look at aircraft carrier losses in 1942 they is high but there was no one saying to scrap aircraft carrier.



Probably because both subs and aircraft carriers could dish it out over much longer ranges (each in their own way), and the latter were more mobile, as were their weapons.

BBs had to close to the enemy, unlike carriers, and lacked a sub's stealth. Bad combo, big target for the other two classes.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jun 27, 2021)

Dreadnought herself caught a U-boat on the surface and rammed her, slicing her atwain.

Which by Mitchell logic means first generation battleships are perfect sub killers.

And Glorious shows that battleships can attack carriers. Taffy 3 as well.

Kentucky, which was a partial Iowa, was considered as a missile platform although it got nowhere and Kentucky would be eventually scrapped.

So is the concept obsolete? Well how about sub hunting or escort or commerce raiding? Total nonsense for a battleship to do that. The fuel required is astronomical and so is the crew numbers.

Flak support? Well yeah but a cruiser can do just as well and radar picket is best suited to a destroyer.

Bombardment? You can use monitors or aircraft so again not strictly necessary. And new missiles like can outrange your big guns.

Line of battle? If your enemy doesn't have battleships then your need for battleships is also reduced.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 27, 2021)

The Basket said:


> Dreadnought herself caught a U-boat on the surface and rammed her, slicing her atwain.
> 
> Which by Mitchell logic means first generation battleships are perfect sub killers.
> 
> And Glorious shows that battleships can attack carriers. Taffy 3 as well.



1) _Dreadnought_ sank one sub, the only sub in history sunk by a battleship. Not really a solid record to go by.

2) Both _Glorious_ and Taffy 3 had leadership decisions resulting in BBs/BCs getting close to flattops, the former by ship's captain, the latter by a miscommunication between admirals. Not exactly exemplary of sound tactical judgements in either case. On the other hand, we've got a BB and BC sunk in open waters in 1941, because they lacked -- guess what? -- air cover. Then there's the _Bismarck_ crippled by aerial torpedo to be finished off the next day. No fighter planes around then, either. The two largest BBs in history both done in by airpower in open seas, both lacking what? Sit at the front desk, it was fighter airplanes not available to defend them against airplanes.

Again, not a solid record of battlewagons against airplanes.

None of that addresses the numerous BBs/BCs sunk or damaged in harbor in 1941/42 by aircraft striking out of range of the ship's guns, or by Italian spec-ops, or German U-boats (two by my count). Oh, the _North Carolina_ caught a sub's torpedo in 1942, as did the _Yamato_ in 1943. 

There's a reason why they were stricken from the lists: they provided little combat value, by 1944, for such enormous expenses, when much more capable ships were already being built.


----------



## Glider (Jun 27, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> IIRC, the first torpedo to hit PoW ruptured a seal along one of the shafts while it was steaming at speed, allowing one torpedo to flood a significant length of the ship when coupled with a wobbly prop-shaft. Lucky hit combined with a design flaw?
> 
> What I've read says the first torpedo would have been fatal for this reason.


From a material point of view this is correct but I would suggest the biggest problems were an appalling command decision where too much credence was put in the belief that her AA guns would achieve more and equally bad Damage Control actions when the seal was hit.

It wasn't POW issue as such. A comment was made earlier comparing the POW to late war US Battleships. A late war POW Class battleship also had vastly improved AA defences and changes to the damage control.


----------



## ThomasP (Jun 28, 2021)

In the mid- to late-1990s there was a very serious discussion in the USN as to the possibility of what might be considered a modern battleship (or at least battle cruiser). I do not remember all the details, but this is part of what it would have involved:

1. 40,000 tons minimum
2. armour and other passive protections capable of protecting against the heaviest reasonably expected above water attacks
3. best possible below water protection, which included decoys and #4 below
4. ASW capability equal to an aircraft carrier (ie ASW helo compliment and facilities)
5. multiple (8 or more) large caliber guns (8" or larger) capable of firing very long range (100 nm+) precision guided projectiles, as well as conventional rounds, for both land and ship attack (the Improved 8" LWGS was mentioned in particular)
6. the AA equivalent of an AEGIS cruiser, but with increased missile load
7. maximum close in weapon CIWS) systems, which at the time included Phalanx and the new RAM IR missile system
8. datalink system capable of networking with any operational military unit fitted with JTIDS or similar system (I think they mentioned more datalink systems)

In a high intensity war, it would have to have its own escort in most circumstances. It was felt that it would be vulnerable to enemy land-based air attacks, and submarines in particular, and so would have to operated at least in loose concert with 1 or more aircraft carriers, as would nearly all other USN surface combatants.

In low intensity conflicts, it was reasoned that it could operate with ASW and AA escorts, the number and type depending on the operations.

It was mooted as the heavy hitter compliment to the upcoming LCS(s), and may have worked in concert with them depending on the operations.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 28, 2021)

Glider said:


> From a material point of view this is correct but I would suggest the biggest problems were an appalling command decision where too much credence was put in the belief that her AA guns would achieve more and equally bad Damage Control actions when the seal was hit.
> 
> It wasn't POW issue as such. A comment was made earlier comparing the POW to late war US Battleships. A late war POW Class battleship also had vastly improved AA defences and changes to the damage control.



I can't speak to the later-war AA defenses, and we agree, I think, that the command decision was the efficient cause of the disaster. The idea to sail without air cover, while at the same time not understanding enemy capabilities, proved deadly.

I was indeed addressing the material cause, as that was the question that 

 The Basket
put: was it a battleship thing or a KGV thing? That begs a material answer.


----------



## The Basket (Jun 28, 2021)

An interesting observation. Battleships attacked at anchor or lost at anchor is actually quite high!

Food for thought.

The loss of Bismarck is again different from the loss of PoW. Using a battleship as a commerce raider is a odd choice but she had no air cover and no proper escort. So she is vulnerable to every row boat and biplane in town. And logically she shouldn't have been there but the sisters had done well as commerce raiders so it's a kind of assumed so will Bismarck. This leviathan of the seas was lost by a damaged rudder. So like a tragic hero of antiquity, this impressive beast had an Achilles heel.

The loss of PoW was an astonishing use of air power. The IJN got their act together and a lesser half measure attack could have been survived. So perhaps we should say that the attack was the key of its success rather than the vulnerability of battleships. Even the most powerful of beasts cannot survive multiple opponents.

The elephant in the room is the Iowas that were operational until the 90s. So somebody somewhere disagrees with our well educated gentlemanly debate.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jun 28, 2021)

The ideal 1945 onwards battleship would be escort to a carrier so air cover would be no factor. Or always operate under the umbrella of air cover from the carrier. Ideally.

We did see in Vietnam and Korea and Gulf War battleships in range of the enemy coast and using her big guns against coastal targets. Which is fine if it's say 16 miles away. If it's 22 miles then your battleship for all it's prowess is no good so the purpose of the battleship is them big guns and if modern anti ship missiles are keeping it from the coast then it's not bombarding nothing. Or once the ground forces move inland then it can no longer offer fire support. Which time the battleship becomes a useless paperweight.


----------



## Glider (Jun 28, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I can't speak to the later-war AA defenses, and we agree, I think, that the command decision was the efficient cause of the disaster. The idea to sail without air cover, while at the same time not understanding enemy capabilities, proved deadly.
> 
> I was indeed addressing the material cause, as that was the question that
> 
> ...


Re the last question I do have the information but it will take a little time to put together a comprehensive response. I will try to do that this evening


----------



## strider190 (Jun 28, 2021)

The Basket said:


> Mitchell proved you can bomb an obsolete German battleship.
> 
> Which wasn't moving. Or shooting back. Or had no escort. Or any damage control. Or any air support.
> 
> ...


I dont agree with you there. Sinking Ostfriestland proved that airplanes could sink battleships. That was all it was meant to prove. Yes, underway with damage control parties and defensive armament would have made a difference (well... maybe) but you've got to understand the revolutionary CONCEPT of sinking a battlewagon from the air. THAT is what Mitchell wanted to show. Of course few listened. I would point out Repulse and Prince of Wales were fine modern ships, underway, with damage control and defensive armament yet they both went down to airplanes. I'm a destroyer man by trade but I can still make a case for the capabilities of a big gun battleship. However, previous posts are quite right. Too expensive to build, to re commission an existing BB would be more costly than building 3 cruisers, Navy definitely not interested. No shipyard has built a BB since1944. (Sigh...) . 
CAPT. G. Graves USN ret.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## bdefen (Jun 28, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> They would be great to have, if already built and paid for. The Iowas are national monuments now (I think) and can't be touched. If you have them then great. If you want to get a nation's attention, parking one of those monsters off its coast will do it. They're damned impressive. Sometimes ya' just gotta' really stand off and SMASH something even if it takes a while.
> With that said, they're too costly in personnel and resources. The lead time for a new one would be at least that of a carrier. If a new build, modern tech has to be designed in. It wouldn't be your dad's battleship. The new BB would be designed with a crap load of air defense systems and missile chuckers. I doubt it would be any more vulnerable than a CVN if we compare ship to ship, sans air group. What are we using for propulsion? For the resources required, there are better uses.
> 
> I agree with The Thumpster. I just like talking battleships.


I've a nice book about the Iowa class battleships, and Jane's book on all battleships built since Dreadnought. Went on a nice tour of the New Jersey moored at Camden, NJ across the river from Philly a few years ago. My preparatory reading allowed me some "self-guided" viewing of the various areas open to the public on the New Jersey. Talk about one massive machine!! By the early 80s it had been refitted with cruise missiles and Phalanx air defense equipment, and of course retained its nine 16" guns

In reference to SaparotRob's citing costliness in personnel and resources, I can't speak for the New Jersey's post WW2 deployment during the Korean and Vietnam wars, but it's my understanding that during its Lebanese war deployment in the early 80s, the New Jersey had to be accompanied by an entire carrier group to provide air cover, as well as further offensive capability. That's costly in personnel and resources. It's a big target.

If you ever have a chance to visit any of the Iowa-class battleships (Iowa, Missouri, New Jersey, Wisconsin) or any other museum battleships like the Texas, do it.


----------



## The Basket (Jun 28, 2021)

Ostfriesland was not exactly state of the art for 1921.

And just because you can run a 3 ring publicity circus and let the press go wild proves the power of the media in 1921. The media are not running the Navy. 

As far as I see, the Mitchell test is purely in the eye of the beholder.

The fact that USA, Italy, Japan, UK, Germany, France and lesser power powers like Sweden and Spain had big gun ships after the Mitchell test proves they weren't buying it either.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2021)

bdefen said:


> I've a nice book about the Iowa class battleships, and Jane's book on all battleships built since Dreadnought. Went on a nice tour of the New Jersey moored at Camden, NJ across the river from Philly a few years ago. My preparatory reading allowed me some "self-guided" viewing of the various areas open to the public on the New Jersey. Talk about one massive machine!! By the early 80s it had been refitted with cruise missiles and Phalanx air defense equipment, and of course retained its nine 16" guns
> 
> In reference to SaparotRob's citing costliness in personnel and resources, I can't speak for the New Jersey's post WW2 deployment during the Korean and Vietnam wars, but it's my understanding that during its Lebanese war deployment in the early 80s, the New Jersey had to be accompanied by an entire carrier group to provide air cover, as well as further offensive capability. That's costly in personnel and resources. It's a big target.
> 
> If you ever have a chance to visit any of the Iowa-class battleships (Iowa, Missouri, New Jersey, Wisconsin) or any other museum battleships like the Texas, do it.



Just toured the USS Missouri last weekend at Pearl Harbor.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bdefen (Jun 28, 2021)

The Basket said:


> A battleship is a lot of time money and resources. A destroyer is a row boat in comparison.
> 
> So the RN was like at the end of the war, what battleship could be hit by a tallboy and survive? The obvious answer is none or none realistic. So kinda silly spend tons of gold on something that can be one shotted.
> 
> ...


Speaking of one shot, the HMS Sheffield was sunk during the Falklands War after being hit by one Exocet missile fired from an Argentine fighter. Sheffield was certainly not a battleship, (a guided missile destroyer), but nonetheless, its sinking certainly points out the vulnerability of any surface ship at war.


----------



## The Basket (Jun 28, 2021)

bdefen said:


> Speaking of one shot, the HMS Sheffield was sunk during the Falklands War after being hit by one Exocet missile fired from an Argentine fighter. Sheffield was certainly not a battleship, (a guided missile destroyer), but nonetheless, its sinking certainly points out the vulnerability of any surface ship at war.


The British shot down a lot of Argentine jets. Certainly proves the vulnerability of any jet at war.


----------



## bdefen (Jun 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Just toured the USS Missouri last weekend at Pearl Harbor.
> 
> View attachment 630255
> View attachment 630257
> ...


Nice photos, and what a piece of history!

While visiting the New Jersey, I chatted with some of the volunteers on board, one of whom had served on the NJ during it Lebanon deployment. Among my many questions, I asked if the ship was still actually floating, and could be fired up and make its own power. The answer was yes to both, but it would take about a year of air-quality variance permission legal work and other stuff just so they would be allowed to fire the boilers. It's not a modern, low-emission rig.

The machinery necessary to move the 16" shells from the magazines upward to the turrets and the gun breeches is very impressive. Wish I had taken photos inside the turret. Some photos below.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bdefen (Jun 28, 2021)

The Basket said:


> The British shot down a lot of Argentine jets. Certainly proves the vulnerability of any jet at war.


Point taken.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 28, 2021)

bdefen said:


> I've a nice book about the Iowa class battleships, and Jane's book on all battleships built since Dreadnought. Went on a nice tour of the New Jersey moored at Camden, NJ across the river from Philly a few years ago. My preparatory reading allowed me some "self-guided" viewing of the various areas open to the public on the New Jersey. Talk about one massive machine!! By the early 80s it had been refitted with cruise missiles and Phalanx air defense equipment, and of course retained its nine 16" guns
> 
> In reference to SaparotRob's citing costliness in personnel and resources, I can't speak for the New Jersey's post WW2 deployment during the Korean and Vietnam wars, but it's my understanding that during its Lebanese war deployment in the early 80s, the New Jersey had to be accompanied by an entire carrier group to provide air cover, as well as further offensive capability. That's costly in personnel and resources. It's a big target.
> 
> If you ever have a chance to visit any of the Iowa-class battleships (Iowa, Missouri, New Jersey, Wisconsin) or any other museum battleships like the Texas, do it.


U.S.S. Olympia is moored right across on the opposite shore. I stood on Olympia's deck and saw U.S.S. New Jersey. From the era of the pre-dreadnoughts to the last of the super dreadnoughts. I'm afraid I was the only there who got it.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 28, 2021)

BTW I've stood on the decks of three Iowas. Got to get back to Pearl Harbor and visit the Mighty Mo. Get all four.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 28, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> BTW I've stood on the decks of three Iowas.



I hate you. I'm jealous. A lofty ambition, to be sure and good on you mate. My battleship list includes the Mo, the Mikasa, the Texas, North Carolina and Alabama...


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 28, 2021)

Part of the difficulty of assessing exactly when battleships became obsolete is the fact that they were powerful weapons with powerful guns and even though aircraft carriers appeared during the Great War and British admirals were already calling for the removal of battleships from the fleet, the type represented one of those weapons that was still capable of altering the regional balance of power throughout and to a small degree after WW2. The major powers could afford both carriers and battleships, and despite the naval treaties between the wars reducing the size and number of battleships the type remained a staple because of potential arms races - look at the mini arms race taking place in South America between Chile, Brazil and Argentina. The Battleship, for all its burgeoning obsolescence prior to WW2 was a prestige symbol, and after the war, with carriers having ascended to take the type's throne, as has been mentioned, the value of big guns was not to be underestimated, to the extent that the Soviet Union continued with, if not completed battleship designs post-war, as well as launching several heavily armed big gunned cruisers. It wasn't really until the ascendency of surface-to-surface missiles that the power of the big gun really became superfluous. Destroyers, carriers and frigates are vulnerable to aircraft; that hasn't changed.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 28, 2021)

Again, we're viewing Mitchell's acheivement from 21st century eyes, with the full knowledge of how things have come to pass in the past 100 years.

Mitchell foresaw the potential of the airplane as an offensive weapon in the age when a nation's power was measured by their battleships and the aircraft was mostly thought of as a fragile novelty.

It's irrelevant that the Ostfreiseland was outdated and it's irrelevant that it was stationary.

The bottom line, was Mitchell's proposal that he could sink the ship with bombers was met with skepticism and almost outright mockery. When he sank it, he infuriated the Navy, he embarrassed his boss (Gen. Perishing) and angered President Coolidge.
So much so, he was demoted and sent to Texas as an aircraft inspector.

So in the end, he was 100% right. Aircraft came of age and was a deciding factor in the next war (WWII) where more capital ships were sunk by aircraft than by any other means.


----------



## rob23 (Jun 28, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Assuming you're talking about dreadnoughts, Jutland comes to mind, and it goes into the early part of WWII. I think both Pearl Harbor and the fate of Force Z were the big wake-up calls for the Gun Club, but there were slugfests both before and after those events (_Bismarck_ before, _Washington_ vs _Kirishima_ and Surigao Strait afterwards, though the latter was more a mugging than a battle.)
> 
> I don't think it can really be pinpointed to one event, but 1941/2 marked the change, it seems to me.
> 
> ...


Washington vs. Kirishima- Willis Lee, gold medals in the 1920 Olympics for team rifle and pistol shooting and knew radar perhaps better than the operators themselves nailed Kirishima in a night battle that may have saved Guadalcanal from being taken over by the Japanese. Washington, Idaho and some DD's were I believe the only remaining USN assets afloat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 28, 2021)

There may have been a few cruisers left but they were needed to escort Enterprise. For the purists out there Kirishima was a battlecruiser.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jun 29, 2021)

A Martini Henry can hit a non moving target at 500 yards.

Therefore we should make it standard rifle for NATO.

That's pretty much in a nutshell what the Mitchell test was. It is not the basis for military adoption.

Forget the absolute and look at the shades of gray.

In football, in Inglaterra, we say can they do it on a wet rainy night in Stoke. The inference is that under perfect conditions then you can be a superstar but try it under less ideal circumstance and let's see how the rubber meets the road.

Werner Von Braun waxed lyrical about rockets and what they can do. And yes they did exactly 100% what Braun said they would do.

Didn't help Adolf in the bunker though. Beware of visionaries for they will bring doom.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 29, 2021)

The Wright Brothers proved that powered, controlled flight was possible by doing it.

Columbus proved you could sail westward and reach land by doing it.

Some brave soul went up to a large beast, pulled on the dangly things and proved that they did indeed provide milk.

The point being, someone has to be the first to prove a theory, even if it upsets the set thinking of the day.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jun 29, 2021)

But let's say the US Navy agree and scrap all capital ships in 1922.

And the British fleet turn up on the east coast. Every row boat battleship the lot.

Let's see Mitchell theory in action!

It's nonsense. Absolute nonsense.

It like the British saying jets in the 1930s and scrapping all props. So by 1940 all you have is prototypes and wish dreams and sun beams.

And to say Mitchell is right in 1945 is no good if Yamato in 1942 is 10 miles away and you are in a tanker totally undefended.

All those guys who were big on blimps and zeppelins and them the future. And not so much.

Another good example is the French and the Lebel. The Lebel was going to be replaced by some super duper self loading rifle but by 1914 it never was. And so French went into the war with the Lebel. The fact the French was 200% right in the 1950s is not doing the French soldier any good.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 29, 2021)

Nobody is saying "scrap all Capital ships", but the thinking of the day was that Battleships were floating fortresses, impervious to any pesky flying machine.

This was the same archiac thinking that assumed the "bomber will always get through" and it's no coincidence that the B-17 was called a "flying fortress".

So let's consider how things may have turned out if Mitchell either failed OR was forbidden to conduct his theory (which almost happened anyway).

How would bomber doctrine been shaped and how would it have affected hybrid bombers (dive-bomber, torpedo-bombers)?

Light bombers for ground attack had already been used in the Great War to good effect as well as fighters/scouts strafing shipping - so it was literally a matter of time before someone went up to that beast and tugged on the udders.

It just happened to be Mitchell.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## bdefen (Jun 29, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> U.S.S. Olympia is moored right across on the opposite shore. I stood on Olympia's deck and saw U.S.S. New Jersey. From the era of the pre-dreadnoughts to the last of the super dreadnoughts. I'm afraid I was the only there who got it.


My photos of the Olympia on that same trip:

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## cherry blossom (Jun 29, 2021)

Battleships became obsolete in their last role once laser guided smart bombs were shown to work, initially in Vietnam but most convincingly in the First Gulf War. Up to then, the Marine Corps felt that battleships were desirable as they could drop a one ton shell accurately on an enemy position without the risk of bombs falling on their own position.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jun 29, 2021)

How effective was high altitude level bombing against warships?

Probs not.

The idea of the B-17 would be to attack fleets of ships off the coast. 

Did it succeed?

Sink a battleship? Battleships are UNSINKABLE! Can you name a single battleship or even big gun capital ship sank? I can't.

Not one. Apart from the ones that did sink.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 29, 2021)

By level bombing or by bombers period?


----------



## The Basket (Jun 29, 2021)

What annoys me that at the end of WW2 it was kamikaze that was the most effective anti shipping weapon.

And Mitchell didn't see that! His crystal ball must have been cloudy that day!

I can say that projectile weapons will be replaced by energy weapons and that man will walk on Mars.

I am a genius.

Problem with Kamikaze that the promotion prospects suck ass.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 30, 2021)

Mitchell provided a sort of proof-of-concept, but the structure of the experiment meant that it was pretty much useless in terms of doctrine as well as tactics. _Of course_ bombs can and do sink ships, but even 20 years after Mitchell's experiment, there was no way to put the idea into practical effect. The same tactics against maneuvering warships did little aside from moving some water around.

In a sense, using -17s for skip-bombing is a tacit admission that using high-level bombers to sink ships under power and moving at sea was a woefully-inefficient way to put ordnance on target against a moving ship. Ever the practical general, Kenney's support of the shift in tactics bespeaks a need to make those heavies more useful for anything more than raising spouts in the water.

As such, it cannot be fairly said that skip-bombing proved Mitchell right, in practice.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 30, 2021)

The Basket said:


> The fact that USA, Italy, Japan, UK, Germany, France and lesser power powers like Sweden and Spain had big gun ships after the Mitchell test proves they weren't buying it either.


Well, Sweden and Spain didn't build any new big guns ships, they just didn't scrap the ones they had which a a somewhat different thing. 

Most of those navies didn't learn much from the Mitchell test and AA equipment was both slow in coming and of very scanty proportions for almost a decade and half after the Mitchell tests. Makes it rather hard to figure out what the naval staffs were responding to.


----------



## The Basket (Jun 30, 2021)

We gonna play a game. The Mitchell test isn't clown shoes but a true scientific test and the results are been processed by clever men smoking pipes and nodding approvingly when someone says a good point.

So a battleship has been sunk by air power. What are the learning points?

Air power in 1921 is pathetic but it may improve in future and certainly within the lifetime of a battleship. So how do we combat air power?

More flak guns. Escorts with flak guns and perhaps some form of air power of our own to challenge enemy air power. So the learning point here is that we need battle groups which offer support. So the carrier and flak ships is a vital part of this new concept. Battleships that are unescorted are vulnerable to air power. Just as they are vulnerable to mines and torpedoes.

Next is that bombs that hit the ship did nothing. So we need armour piercing bombs that can go through deck armour. And battleships that can withstand armour piercing bombs as somebody somewhere may have also thought of this also.

Ships can be severely damaged by underwater explosion and so we really need to double down on this. Although the sinking of HMS Audacious makes this Numero Uno priority anyway due to mines and torpedoes. So more clever torpedo bulges and better torpedoes as well. 

And there we have it. Not battleships are obsolete but that we need better battleships that operate as part of a team.

The odd thing about air power against ships is that it was poor for a lot of the inter war period and then suddenly wasn't. We see this especially in the USN when every mm of deck space in 1945 had a Bofors on it.

My point of using Sweden and Spain was to highlight the international concept of sea power was universal.
Everyone had the same idea of big gun ships charging into thier own Trafalgar. You cannot beat the heroic aspect of that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 30, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Mitchell provided a sort of proof-of-concept, but the structure of the experiment meant that it was pretty much useless in terms of doctrine as well as tactics. _Of course_ bombs can and do sink ships, but even 20 years after Mitchell's experiment, there was no way to put the idea into practical effect. The same tactics against maneuvering warships did little aside from moving some water around.
> 
> In a sense, using -17s for skip-bombing is a tacit admission that using high-level bombers to sink ships under power and moving at sea was a woefully-inefficient way to put ordnance on target against a moving ship. Ever the practical general, Kenney's support of the shift in tactics bespeaks a need to make those heavies more useful for anything more than raising spouts in the water.
> 
> As such, it cannot be fairly said that skip-bombing proved Mitchell right, in practice.


When you get a chance, give this a read:
Battle of the Bismarck Sea

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 1, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> When you get a chance, give this a read:
> Battle of the Bismarck Sea



Thanks for the article. I'm pretty familiar with that battle, but hadn't realized how the initial B-17 attacks broke up the convoy formation. The article doesn't report whether this was an intentional attack or whether that break-up of the formation was a happy accident. Do you have any information on that?

Just to be clear, in no way am I disparaging skip-bombing as a technique, nor am I saying that level-bombing never sank a ship; I'm just saying that versus underway shipping, level-bombing from altitude was far and away the least-effective method of attacking them. My only point is that Mitchell's demonstration with _Ostfriesland_ was fairly unremunerative going forward in interdicting shipping.

Airplanes cooked the battleship's collective goose, without a doubt, but generally not in the way Mitchell had envisioned, but rather by these more-precise tactics of skip-bombing, dive-bombing, and torpedo-bombing.

ETA: There is a nice sense of justice in the fact that Bismarck Sea featured as a major component aircraft named after the late general. I have no doubt that had Mitchell lived to see it carried out, even differently than he had envisioned, he would still have heartily approved -- and probably feel vindicated, rightfully so in the broader sense that BBs didn't really stand much of a chance against airplanes once the right tactics were evolved.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 1, 2021)

The initial attack by the bombers at about 7,000 was intentional.
They knew it would scatter the ships, making them easy prey for the incoming low-level boys.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 1, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> The initial attack by the bombers at about 7,000 was intentional.
> They knew it would scatter the ships, making them easy prey for the incoming low-level boys.









That's just badass.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Jul 1, 2021)

David K. Brown, a prominent figure in the Admiralty's Royal Corps of Naval Constructors (ie warship design & construction engineering department) concluded that a battleship could be designed and built that would be able to defend and survive against aircraft, but that the battleship could not be designed and built that would have the ability to project power far enough to compete with the aircraft carrier. It was shortly post-war (early-1950s IIRC) when he said this, but I do not think he changed his mind in later life (he died in 2008). He wrote many books on naval ship engineering and design, and contributed to many more.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jul 2, 2021)

Didn't the Iowas have cruise missiles so technically....


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 2, 2021)

The Basket said:


> Didn't the Iowas have cruise missiles so technically....


32 Tomahawk cruise missiles and 16 Harpoon A/S missiles was stanard compliment.


----------



## The Basket (Jul 2, 2021)

Projection of power is the key.

After 1945 it was the atom bomb that was the battleship of its day.

The battleship was the battleship of its day.

The Knight in armour on horseback was the battleship of its day.

After 1945, it wasn't about convoy duties or how we commerce raid but how we launch atom bomb. That's where the cheese was. So an airplane has longer range than a battleship to deploy these mushroom cloud sprouters.

And if the Navy wanted it's seat at the top table with the big boys, it must be able to deploy nuclear weapons. That's where the money was.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Feb 25, 2022)

I was watching a documentary about the British Pacific Fleet in 1945.

The most powerful fleet the British ever mustered 100 ships.

And it was all about the Avengers.

End off. All about putting the Avengers where they need to be. 

Attacking the oil refinery hundreds of miles away. No battleship can shoot as far as an Avenger can bomb.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 25, 2022)

The Basket said:


> I was watching a documentary about the British Pacific Fleet in 1945.
> 
> The most powerful fleet the British ever mustered 100 ships.
> 
> ...



Which is why BBs are museum shops nowadays, while carriers are still being built.


----------



## The Basket (Feb 25, 2022)

Palembang in the Dutch East Indies against the oil refinery.

Seafires, Hellcats, Corsairs, Fireflys, Avengers.

The fleet did have battleships which were the 4 KGV.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Feb 26, 2022)

TF57/37, the main offensive group of the BPF, generally operated with 1-2 KGV. Operation Meridian against Palembang only KGV was present. Operation Iceberg against the Sakishima Gunto and Formosa, KGV and Howe were present. And off Japan in July / August 1945 only KGV. Throughout 1945 the BPF was building its strength.

Duke of York didn’t arrive in Australian waters until 24th June 1945 when she arrived at Fremantle. She didn’t arrive in Japanese waters, carrying Admiral Fraser, until 18th August, after the announcement of the Japanese surrender.

Anson arrived in Sydney in July 1945. She sailed from there on 15th Aug 1945 with other BPF ships to reoccupy Hong Kong at the end of the month.

KGV and Howe with supporting cruisers and destroyers bombarded airfields in the Sakishima Gunto on 4th May. On 29th July KGV and supporting cruisers and destroyers joined US Battleships, cruisers and destroyers to bombard the Japanese mainland. This was the last time a British battleship fired its guns in anger.

Bombardments of Truk took place in June 1945 as part of Operation Inmate by British, Canadian and New Zealand manned cruisers and destroyers. HMS Newfoundland had also joined HMAS Hobart to bombard Wewak in New Guinea in May 1945.

Big guns still had their part to play right to the end of the war. But yes the days of the battleship were largely over.

It is worth remembering the US Battleships were active with their big guns during the Korean and Vietnam wars and in Gulf War I.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Feb 26, 2022)

No Renown or Nelsons. No QE or Rs.

So just the KGVs or the ones still afloat. So pretty much the vanguard (if you pardon the pun) of the battleship fleet.

But a lot of carriers.

So yeah if I was looking into that the. Maybe I would be making a decision based on this.

To say a battleship can offer flak support is valid but a cruiser can also do that at a cheaper cost. And a monitor can do shore bombardment.

So yeah.

Shore bombardment only works when your winning. Against a peer opponent, rocking up to your enemy coast is a surefire way of a one way trip to the bottom of the sea.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Feb 26, 2022)

The Basket said:


> No Renown or Nelsons. No QE or Rs.
> 
> So just the KGVs or the ones still afloat. So pretty much the vanguard (if you pardon the pun) of the battleship fleet.
> 
> ...


R class - the end of 1943 saw 2 sent to reserve as they were worn out and the RN needed the crews to man more modern ships. Royal Sov refitted late 1943 in USA but still had problems so she went to the Soviets in May 1944 on loan until 1948. Ramilles used for bombardment purposes off Normandy and to reserve in 1945.

QE class - Warspite severely damaged by bomb and mine by late 1944 and not worth repairing. Malaya old, slow, poor machinery state, to reserve in Aug 1944. Valiant in the East Indies in 1944 supporting carrier operations until almost lost in Aug 1944 when the dry dock at Trincomalee collapsed with her in it. Under repair at end of war. QE spent most of 1944/45 in the East Indies incl support for carrier raids on Sumatra/Burma/Malaya. Replaced by Nelson in July 1945 when home to reserve.

Nelson class - Rodney was in a very poor material state by Sept 1944 after bombardment duty off Normandy and badly overdue for a reconstruction which she never got. Home Fleet flagship in 1944/45 but rarely left harbour. Nelson mined off Normandy and under refit until early 1945. Then to East Indies in time for the end of the war.

Renown - spent 1944 and early 1945 in the East Indies supporting carrier operations. Brought home in March 1945 in case of a last minute sortie by German Fleet (DoY and Anson were just completing refits at that point and needed to work up before heading for the Pacific so were not available for the role).

The use made of the KGVs in 1945 mirrors that of the 10 USN fast battleships supporting TF38/58. Look at the AA armament that a KGV, particularly the refitted DoY, Anson and Howe (from Sept 1945) can bring to the fight compared to a Town or Fiji class cruiser in terms of the number of director controlled multiple pom pom and bofors mounts, which is what really counted in dealing with the kamikaze menace. 

DoY etc - 16x5.25, 8 octuple and 6 quad pom pom, 2 quad bofors plus many single and twin 20mm and single 40mm. KGV lacked the extra 6 quad pom pom.

Belfast - 8x4", 6 quad pom pom, plus single and twin 20mm and single pom pom and bofors.

Most of the other cruisers in the BPF in Aug could only bring 3, 4 or 5 quad pom pom / quad bofors depending on ships concerned to the party. And the RN was not exactly swimming in modern cruisers with heavy AA armament by 1945. 

You will find full details of the ships forming the BPF and EIF in August 1945 here.


BPF & EIF Fleets Home



But remember both fleets were building in strength as 1945 went on and as ships could be released from service in Home waters to be refitted and sent East. So those lists are not what was present in theatre at the start of the year, nor do they represent the further expansion that was planned. In the case of the BPF that build up was restricted by how quickly the Fleet Train could be built up to support them. Admiral King of the USN was adamant that the BPF should be self supporting. In practice those in command in the Pacific were prepared to be a bit more flexible.


----------



## The Basket (Feb 26, 2022)

Compared to the USN fleet, the Pacific fleet was drop in the bucket.

A battleship may be good for flak escort but you can't do flak escort and shore bombardment at the same time.

RN simply didn't have the ships for this.

The KGV were also slower than the carrier they were escorting.

So as you said by 1945 only the KGV and Renown were fully capable of doing anything.

So you are going to have to build probably 12 ships just to replace losses and the obsolete. That big money.

King is well known for his er..... attitude to Britain and he didn't want anything to do with it. But he was told he has to take the British so he did but then didn't give any support.

Why Britain was there was more for picking up the pieces of Empire after wars end....a show of force or show of face.

Needed something to sail into Singapore and Hong Kong.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Feb 26, 2022)

The Basket said:


> The KGV were also slower than the carrier they were escorting.


You clearly don't understand the speeds that carrier groups operated at in WW2. While individual ships might be capable of operating at speeds up to 33 knots in the case of US carriers, Task Group speeds were generally in the region of 15-25 knots. There are many reasons for this 

1. Fuel burn. This increases dramatically with higher speeds.
2. WW2 ASDIC/Sonar was only effective up to c18-20 knots. Speed of itself was not a protection from submarines. Ask the Japanese about the loss of Taiho and Shokaku at 25-26 knots.
3. A TG can only remain a coherent body if it stays together. Contrary to popular opinion carriers generally did not go hairing around the ocean outside of their rings of escorts.

The procedures that were worked out by the USN saw the whole group increasing or decreasing speed and changing course together when it came to operating aircraft. If a carrier needed to operate its aircraft outwith that sequence the rules were that it positioned itself as far downwind as possible while remaining within the destroyer screen. It then turned into wind and ran at the speed it needed to launch / recover its aircraft as quickly as possible while remaining within that screen. It then took up its designated position in the Task Group again.

Incidentally, for the first 2 weeks of Op Iceberg Illustrious was limited to 24 knots anyway by virtue of having her centre prop removed in Sydney due to vibration problems. Had Formidable not been delayed by her own machinery problems Illustrious would never have gone to the Pacific. The second carrier TG planned for the BPF would have been limited to 25 knots anyway as that was the max speed of the Colossus class light fleet carriers.

So the fact that the KGVs were slower than an Illustrious / Implacable class carrier is irrelevant on a whole variety of levels.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Akuma (Feb 26, 2022)

The Basket said:


> Mitchell proved you can bomb an obsolete German battleship.
> 
> Which wasn't moving. Or shooting back. Or had no escort. Or any damage control. Or any air support.
> 
> ...


What you say is true but you must remember, at that time, the Naval Authorities categorically refused to believe that a battleship could be sunk by an aircraft under ANY circumstances. It would be a fair assumption that some of the naval staff witnessing the test refused to believe the results of what they saw. Historian Mr. Bernard Brodie consulted US Naval leadership for a book he published in 1941 titled 'Sea Power in the Machine Age' in which he quoted naval staff as saying"At this time there is no weapon that can be carried by an aircraft capable of seriously damaging a major warship." This book was released for sale just prior to December 7th of that year.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

