1. #1
    Having given this some thought and realising that this is off topic, I am concluding that the Battleship/Battlecruiser was an expensive and ineffective weapon overall during WW2.

    For the cost of 1 battleship perhaps several Aircraft carriers and/or Destroyers could have been built.

    Look at the expectations and loss of the famous ships of this type. Hood/Bismark, Prince of Wales/Renown, Yamato and Musashi.

    Fast Light cruiser and Heavy Cruisers with more Carriers and Destroyers of the time would have been better and more effective than Battleships
    in the Pacific War. Also in the Atlantic.

    The rein of the Battleships was over after WW1.

    Perhaps the really great 'battleships' were made of wood.
    Share this post

  2. #2
    HERETIC!!!!!!!!!
    just kidding

    Although they were not as effective as the Aircraft carrier[in PTO]They did do a formidable job at land bombardment in the PTO island hopping Campaign,also the Iowa class has served up to as late as the 1st Gulf War,long after The Yorktown & Enterprise saw action.



    God I love those "BIG GUNS"
    Share this post

  3. #3
    fabianfred's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    1,464
    but 90% of the bombardments of shore during the island-hopping in the PTO...especially Okinawa...was an absolute waste of munitions since the japanese were dug into caves in the coral and left very little exposed
    Share this post

  4. #4
    leitmotiv's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    11,600
    Absurd. In the Guadalcanal campaign the battleship still reigned at night. A bombardment by Japanese battleships did more damage to Henderson than any of the air attacks, and nearly shut it down. WASHINGTON singlehandedly sank KIRISHIMA and saw off an entire Japanese bombardment force.
    Share this post

  5. #5
    VW-IceFire's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    13,646
    The battleship was essentially obsolete before it was even built. The submarine was the real danger to just about any ship.

    But you can't discount the battleship as both an effective weapon in several battles as well as a powerful symbol of power or a threat that demanded great resource. Look what the Bismarck did to the Royal Navy or the Tirpitz in mobilizing the RAF to keep her pinned down or what the Yamato was as a symbol to the Japanese Navy. Some of these elements have power that goes beyond a purely war by the numbers sort of look.
    Share this post

  6. #6
    ...a powerful symbol of power or a threat that demanded great resource... Some of these elements have power that goes beyond a purely war by the numbers sort of look.
    Main (only?) reason Iowa class was re-commissioned for Gulf War I.

    CNN was all over it.
    Share this post

  7. #7
    ElAurens's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    5,205
    You trust CNN?

    Share this post

  8. #8
    While Battleships were outclassed by airpower in a ship-to-ship role during WW2, I wouldnt say they were useless.
    In support of amphibious landings or for striking coastal targets (especially heavily armored/dug in positions) big Naval guns are unrivalled.
    Even after WW2 this was still true:

    "Between 23 May and 27 May and again 30 May 1951, New Jersey pounded targets near Yangyang and Kansong, dispersing troop concentrations, dropping a bridge span, and destroying three large ammunition dumps. Air spotters reported Yangyang abandoned at the end of this action, while railroad facilities and vehicles were smashed at Kansong...
    Between 4 July and 12 July, New Jersey supported a United Nations push in the Kansong area, firing at enemy buildup and reorganization positions. As the Republic of Korea's First Division hurled itself on the enemy, shore fire control observers saw New Jersey's salvos hit directly on enemy mortar emplacements, supply and ammunition dumps, and personnel concentrations. New Jersey returned to Wonsan 18 July for an exhibition of perfect firing: five gun emplacements demolished with five direct hits."
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_New_Jersey_(BB-62))
    Compared to what can be doled out by air craft or missles, the sustained weight of firepower of a BB is staggering. Also, unlike airpower or missles, a batteships shells can not be shotdown or spoofed.

    With the increase in effectiveness of AA guns and missles, the battleship's vulnerability to air attack has been considerably reduced also.

    In fact the British experience in the Falklands (from their losses to Argie Exocets) would tend to make the foot of case-hardened steel belt armor on the ships like the Iowa class BBs very attractive indeed. These old battlewagons were build to take a major pounding.

    Not to mention the fact that battleships are perhaps the single most potent symbol of foreign policy ever invented.
    Nothing projects power like armored batteries of 16 inch guns.
    Share this post

  9. #9
    Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
    The battleship was essentially obsolete before it was even built. The submarine was the real danger to just about any ship.

    But you can't discount the battleship as both an effective weapon in several battles as well as a powerful symbol of power or a threat that demanded great resource. Look what the Bismarck did to the Royal Navy or the Tirpitz in mobilizing the RAF to keep her pinned down or what the Yamato was as a symbol to the Japanese Navy. Some of these elements have power that goes beyond a purely war by the numbers sort of look.
    Yes but what is the cost of all that? Yamato and Musashi for instance did nothing at all. But imagine what those two ships could have provided in Carriers to the Imperial Navy.

    They serve better purpose now than in WWII because now nobody is trying their hearts out to sink them! They are gigantic floating tomahawk launchers.

    On the other hand they have no place in carrier task forces, they are too slow and suck too much oil.

    Really, whereas cruisers were the ship type of choice during British Imperial days, Battleships might have the same effect on regional control in modern times. It's something to think about.
    Share this post

  10. #10
    Actually, from the late 1800's on, battleships were THE pinnacle of force projection.

    A battleship of the period dominated anything in range of its guns, and that was often a very large swath of the coastline and some miles inland.

    The decisiveness of the battleship at war was pretty much conclusively proved to the world during the Russo-Japanese War, and the results of the naval component of that war completely reshuffled the map of world powers at the turn of the 20th century.

    Despite the rise of torpedoes and subs, until WW2, torpedoes proved erratic and unreliable (for that matter the torps in early WW2 were pretty iffy). Torpedo boats and destroyers didn't prove to be major threats the development of longer range (and accurate) torpedoes in WW2. In WW1, torpedo boats, destroyers and even some capital ships mounted torpedoes, but they were more often used as a threat to break or divert formations, rather than a decisive weapon.

    All of that convinced the battleship proponents that the "big guns" were still kings of the sea. There role wasn't eclipsed until more modern subs, longer range torpedoes and higher speed torps, and most importantly, aircraft showed up.

    Not surprisingly, the Japanese clued into this a lot earlier then other major navies, which is why they started the war with very advanced night fighting capability on their big battlewagons. The had decided that the BB's would rule the night, the carriers owned the day and the subs would be the eyes of the fleet.

    Worked very well for them early on, until losses and lack of replacement broke their strategy and left the IJN vulnerable to allied air power.
    Share this post

Page 1 of 23 12311 ... Last ►►