The end of the battleship

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
That bacon is for HMS Warspite.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Glider said:
The POW was modern, with for the time quite a good AA component and they were sunk fairly quickly with few losses.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Long term viability of the USA's warship museum ships?
Replies
13
Views
854
GreenKnight121
The Rise and Fall of the Nazi War Machine
Replies
5
Views
1K
pbehn
P
Aviation Concepts: Pterodactyl And The Origins Of The Tailless And Flying Wing
Replies
1
Views
472
Gnomey
O
British Balloon Bombs in the Balkans, Summer 1943?
Replies
4
Views
419
Old MacDonald
O
Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress Aircraft Gunner from the series: "Masters Of The Air"
Replies
2
Views
1K
The Stannum Liberator
Menu
Log in
Register