Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Be fair I did say Quite a good AA component.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.
But what went wrong with PoW.
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.
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.
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.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.
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 eveningI 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 thatThe Basket put: was it a battleship thing or a KGV thing? That begs a material answer.
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...) .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)
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" gunsThey 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.
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.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.
The British shot down a lot of Argentine jets. Certainly proves the vulnerability of any jet at war.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.
Nice photos, and what a piece of history!Just toured the USS Missouri last weekend at Pearl Harbor.
View attachment 630255View attachment 630257View attachment 630258View attachment 630259View attachment 630260View attachment 630261
Point taken.The British shot down a lot of Argentine jets. Certainly proves the vulnerability of any jet at war.