RoG Bismarck, Pray for me!

subfixer wrote:

I will submit this vessel for consideration as a badazz: It's an Ohio class SSGN. 22 of the 24 missile tubes carry 7 Tomahawks each for a total of 154 missiles. That is about the same as an entire surface action group. The other two tubes are utilized for the 60 SEAL Team members that may be carried. These boats also carry their nominal 24 torpedoes forward. These boats are super quiet. We won't go into the SSBNs as they are really scary creatures.

Right on, subfixer. Most badazz indeed. That's why I included them in my inventory of "Top Dogs".
Also, to the point of the current situation in Korea, I don't know what a battleship would do to the psyche of Lil Kim, but the thought of that ballistic missile submarine lurking in the neighborhood is what will keep that little narcissist in his place.
He likes to bluster, but he likes living even more and knowing that he (and every other nation for that matter) will never know that "boomers" location is why I for one laugh at his every gesture.

subfixer wrote:

That sucks that your photo was stolen, bondoman. I can sympathize with you, though. I had the medical department daily log from the assault and occupation of Kwajalein that I rescued from a trash pile at the Naval Hospital archive on Guam. I let one of the yayhoos at work borrow it to show his brother and never saw it again.

No good deed goes unpunished...

In a bar in Groton, Connecticut, (the Groton Motor Inn) there is an original nautical chart with the track of the Nautilus's route under the Arctic Ocean during its maiden voyage. It is signed by the entire original crew. The leading quartermaster (retired, of course) of that crew just about lived at that bar and loved to tell anyone who cared to listen, all about that boat. Talk about something you'd like to steal, that chart really needs to be in a museum.

That sucks that your photo was stolen, bondoman. I can sympathize with you, though. I had the medical department daily log from the assault and occupation of Kwajalein that I rescued from a trash pile at the Naval Hospital archive on Guam. I let one of the yayhoos at work borrow it to show his brother and never saw it again.

subfixer wrote:

I will submit this vessel for consideration as a badazz: It's an Ohio class SSGN. 22 of the 24 missile tubes carry 7 Tomahawks each for a total of 154 missiles. That is about the same as an entire surface action group. The other two tubes are utilized for the 60 SEAL Team members that may be carried. These boats also carry their nominal 24 torpedoes forward. These boats are super quiet. We won't go into the SSBNs as they are really scary creatures.

My moms college roomates husband, who became a close person family friend, gave me a signed 8x10 of the Nautilus with his sig as XO. Took it to school in second grade for show and tell, some jerk kid stole it at lunch. We visited them in 1959 at Pearl Harbor- I have no idea what boat he was assigned to, but he took my dad out on a comissioning cruise and they sank themselves by flooding the forward torpedo room. Dad sat in the wardroom for four hours until it was sorted out and they surfaced. Never ever told Mom the story.

Jim Bush died last year. He was a good friend of ours and someone I respected as he took on the industrial establishment late in life. His home in Newport News was always open to us and I spent several summers there. Hot, damn hot but they were gentele people. I would forever tip my hat to the silent service.

 

Could Japan have attacked Pearl Harbor with battleships instead of carriers? And if so, can we wargame the results?

I will submit this vessel for consideration as a badazz:

It's an Ohio class SSGN. 22 of the 24 missile tubes carry 7 Tomahawks each for a total of 154 missiles. That is about the same as an entire surface action group. The other two tubes are utilized for the 60 SEAL Team members that may be carried. These boats also carry their nominal 24 torpedoes forward. These boats are super quiet.

We won't go into the SSBNs as they are really scary creatures.

True!  I will say this, given the current situation in Korea, I just bet Obama WISHED he had a battleship readily available to deploy there, as a carrier is just too vulnerable given the NKorean missile inventory, and as I have said many times, the Marines have always been big fans of the battleship as well (the ability to TAKE a punch, as well as dish one out is something the Navy has lost as a virtue a long time ago)!  Yes, the battleship and the aircraft carrier complement each other very well, given an intensive naval warfare environment, the likes of which has not existed since WW2.  The battleship is designed for war and intimidation, and not much else, while the carrier can conduct all sorts of other operations, as well as 'power projection.'  Personally, in these times I like the Marine Amphibious Assault ships like USS Tarawa better than either!  I have always felt it too bad that the Marines always get the short end of the stick with Naval funding..... Some time ago, Obama was talking about increasing the size of the Army by about 60,000 troops.... It would be even MORE effective if they built another Marine Division!

I'm still a little concerned that this is evolving into an "either/or" issue between battleships and carriers.  I don't know of anyone who claims that battleships are superior (whatever that means) to carriers.  I will say it again and again . . . carriers replaced battleships as the main striking force of naval power because they can hit farther and faster.  BUT, the role of the battleship evolved dramatically during WWII and battleships proved that they were well suited for roles that carrier air power can fulfill less well.

Now, technology seems to have shifted again.  Cruise missiles onboard warships mean that even a destroyer can inflict serious damage on a distant enemy without loss of personnel and valuable aircraft.  Any carrier operations against an enemy results in pilots being shot down.  In today's political environment, these losses are unacceptable.  Captured pilots means political fallout and a propaganda coup for the enemy.  Cruise missiles can inflict similar damage without such loss.  Why not just simply use destroyers for this role?  HMS Sheffield showed why when she was sunk by a single Exocet that didn't even explode.  A heavily armored ship such as a battleship would have probably shaken that missile off and survived with its offensive capabilities intact. The subsequent discussion about survival in a nuclear environment is actually irrelevant; navies do not use nuclear weapons in tactical situations with other ships.

Also, don't forget that the Marine Corps has long lamented the decommissioning of the Iowa's.  Those professionals recognize the value of those 16" guns; I wonder if we have the same level of expertise to criticize their point of view.

Finally, it seems that we have digressed from the reasons find the Bismarck an attractive build, taking it to discussing whether or not battleships were husbanded during WWII. Even Manny said that they were not, clarifying his comment to say that he meant they were in WWI after Jutland but not in WWII.  He then went on to say that they were husbanded in WWII, the contradiction being very clear. We then went to possible modern uses of this type of warship, to nuclear weaponry (which has little use in a naval war) to the battleship vs. carrier controversy.

To readdress the issue of "husbanded" . . . the meaning of the word is that battleships were held back from fighting and were not used.  The fact the the Germans forward deployed their capital ships meant that they were NOT husbanded as Manny asserts.  Germany did lose three of the in ship-to-ship engagements, meaning that they were actually deployed on wartime cruises.  If they were husbanded, they would have remained back in the relatively safe Baltic.  But, the only time they returned to the Baltic was when they suffered damage and had to be repaired. Even Tirpitz was forward deployed in Norway, returning to Germany only to undergo repairs.

British and American battleships were decidedly NOT husbanded, being actively engaged throughout the war.  We've already discussed the Italians and the French; only the Japanese husbanded their battleships.  I fail to see how anyone can say otherwise.  The facts are only too clear that battleships were, in fact, heavily used throughout the war.

Bill Morrison

Mansteins revenge wrote:

bbrowniii wrote: That being said, I gotta say, I'm with Warshipguy and Searat on this one - true, the role of the battleship evolved in WWII and beyond - however to suggest they were obsolete by the end of the war is, IMO, mistaken.  They provided valuable service (for the US) right up through the first Gulf War and would continue to do so if, as searat pointed out, their cost was not so prohibitive... In fact, it would be cheaper to operate a battleship than a modern carrier with its compliment of aircraft...

True, you'll get no argument from me that the carrier definately fills a broader spectrum of missions and, as a result of the range of its aircraft, can project power in a way that a BB no longer can.  For that reason, the expense of the carrier is acceptable, whereas the expense of a BB is a bit of a 'luxury'...

bbrowniii wrote:

That being said, I gotta say, I'm with Warshipguy and Searat on this one - true, the role of the battleship evolved in WWII and beyond - however to suggest they were obsolete by the end of the war is, IMO, mistaken.  They provided valuable service (for the US) right up through the first Gulf War and would continue to do so if, as searat pointed out, their cost was not so prohibitive...

In fact, it would be cheaper to operate a battleship than a modern carrier with its compliment of aircraft...

Bondo, I don't quite understand what you mean here, but no worries. I presume that your father in law was on a BB off Southern France at the time of the Normandy landings? But if IIRC, there were  three US BBs and several RN ones also on June 6th, for a total of 7 (according to http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/comnaveu/comnaveu-8.htm#part2 ) off of Normandy. It is interesting to read the German remarks about naval gunfire in its' effect upon their forces, and its' comparison with tactical airpower.

Manny is quite correct in saying that two shore bombardments in the Pacific in particular were notable for their lack of neutralizing enemy defences, Iwo Jima, and Tarawa. However, they did cause some damage and had their firepower not been there at all, are subject to much "what if" speculation as to the effect of their bombardments. Additionally, at Tarawa, much was learned about the necessity for a precision, extended shore bombadment that was put to good use in the following Marshalls and Marianas campaigns. At Iwo, it has been documented how a longer period of preperatory bombardment (one full week as opposed to three days) was requested to reduce Japanese defenses. And proponents of airpower can take note that Iwo was also subjected to over 70 days of aerial bombing by heavy bombers in addtion to the three days of naval gunfire and carrier air strikes before the first Marine even set foot on shore. This gives an idea of the stoutness of the defensive postions constructed there by the Japanese.

Again, I dont think the Battleship was obsolete, only that it's role had changed. The carrier and the battleship complement one another.

 

In response to bbrowniii,
I have found Manstein's revenge's points to be valid across the board. When the Japanese came to Pearl Harbor, it was not with a squadron of battleships, it was with aircraft carriers. Their highest priority targets? American aircraft carriers. I don't see Yamamoto doing cartwheels around his planning table upon learning that not a single American carrier was sunk but "at least we got the battleships".
When the Japanese sortied their 4 carriers to Midway, it was not with the intention of drawing the American battleships into an ambush, they wanted to destroy the targets they considered to be of gravest threat to them: American aircraft carriers.
When the Americans, haven broken the Japanese code thus knowing what was up, responded, it was not with a squadron of battleships, it was with aircraft carriers.
After the losing all four of the carriers committed to Midway, the Japanese were effectively defeated.
Every historian regards Midway as the turning point of he war. If the battleship were the still the powerhouse as has been asserted by several here, then Yamato and her sister ship (whose name escapes me) would have stepped to the front and brushed aside these pretenders to their crown.
The battleship has been defended eloquently here. The admirals Manstein's revenge sites in his previous posting would applaud your efforts but one fact is utterly inescapable: The mighty Bismark was rendered impotent by an antiquated Swordfish bi-plane that barely ran over 100mph.
The battlewagons were allowed to finish Bismark off just as "a point of honor".
At the risk of offending the ship crowd, air power rules.(wink)

bbrowniii wrote:

bondoman wrote: This conversation has gotten a little silly. Stik, with all due respect, here's a paradigm. Question from me: Fatherinlaw where were you on D Day 44? Answer: we bombed the hell out of the germans in France from mid May on, in the south. made them think an invasion was coming from the med. BBs off Normandy. Please. ???????? I've been following this debate for the last few days and have to say it is quite entertaining.  Manny, you do a nice job fending off the attacks of these guys - you are kinda off on an island in this thing. That being said, I gotta say, I'm with Warshipguy and Searat on this one - true, the role of the battleship evolved in WWII and beyond - however to suggest they were obsolete by the end of the war is, IMO, mistaken.  They provided valuable service (for the US) right up through the first Gulf War and would continue to do so if, as searat pointed out, their cost was not so prohibitive... Alright, I've said my piece - at the bell, come out of your respective corners fighting - but lets keep it clean gentlemen... LETSSSSSS GET READY TO RUMBLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!

I wouldn't say that I'm alone on this. Many have chimed in one post and not got back in the "ring".  It is convential and common knowledge that air power/carriers made the BB obsolete, for the most part...otherwise, we'd be commisioning BB's today instead of carriers...

I never wrote that a BB was useless, but whoever contends that battleships played a more important or superior role than carriers did during WW2, or after, are at odds with history and every piece of literature and expert opinion that is out there...and all the guys in here know that...

bondoman wrote:

This conversation has gotten a little silly. Stik, with all due respect, here's a paradigm. Question from me: Fatherinlaw where were you on D Day 44? Answer: we bombed the hell out of the germans in France from mid May on, in the south. made them think an invasion was coming from the med. BBs off Normandy. Please.

????????

I've been following this debate for the last few days and have to say it is quite entertaining.  Manny, you do a nice job fending off the attacks of these guys - you are kinda off on an island in this thing.

That being said, I gotta say, I'm with Warshipguy and Searat on this one - true, the role of the battleship evolved in WWII and beyond - however to suggest they were obsolete by the end of the war is, IMO, mistaken.  They provided valuable service (for the US) right up through the first Gulf War and would continue to do so if, as searat pointed out, their cost was not so prohibitive...

Alright, I've said my piece - at the bell, come out of your respective corners fighting - but lets keep it clean gentlemen...

LETSSSSSS GET READY TO RUMBLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!

While shore bombardment in prep for seaborne landings was common in WW2, it proved to almost always fall short of expectations.  The inquisitive armchair historian can cite several references to the general ineffectivess of it in most cases.  There was Tarawa where the shells mostly skipped across the island and exploded on the other side, or the instances, like Iwo Jima, where it actually affected the Japanese defenses in no appreciable way, etc. etc. etc.

...It was good for morale, however, to see those big gun firing on the way in, but when the ramp dropped down and the enemy MG's opened up---that had to be a let-down...

The only "true" and measurable success of this shore, IMO, that I have studied was at Normandy.  Ships, of all types, could range in almost through August to some German positions because they were so close to the beaches...there was the specific example where naval gunfire hit the HQ of the 12th SS "Hitlerjugend" Division on June 13th and killed the CO (Fritz Witt) and several key staff officers...Kurt "panzer" Meyer then took over the Division...Of course, Allied air-power was also taking care of business... 

The ironic thing is that BB's were adapted to fill that role and were never designed specifically for it...they were designed to fight other BB's, but the rarity of surface-to-surface actions relegated them to offshore "artillery support"... 

This conversation has gotten a little silly. Stik, with all due respect, here's a paradigm.

Question from me: Fatherinlaw where were you on D Day 44?

Answer: we bombed the hell out of the germans in France from mid May on, in the south. made them think an invasion was coming from the med.

BBs off Normandy. Please.

 

In the Atlantic, the fleet carrier never truly assumed the dominant role in WWII, they worked in concert with battleships in the roles envisaged pre war by most naval staffs that had carriers. As pointed out previously, battleships were crucial at Casablanca, Sicily, Salerno, and Normandy to getting the force ashore and then breaking up counterattacks against the beach head.

In the Pacific, the carrier assumed the primary role mainy thru the removal of the US Pacific Fleet battle line at Pearl Harbor. The US was forced to improvise and rely upon the untried concept of the carrier being the primary weapon. Both US and Japanese war plans had been predicated upon their battle lines engaging one another with carriers in support. At Guadalcanal, the closest that the Japanese came to overpowering the US forces was when their battleships bombarded Henderson and destryed nearly every aircraft there and most of thier aviation fuel. Had their Army been in position to launch their offensive to capitalize upon this, the outcome may have been very different. While land based air power would quickly dominate battleships at sea if they were within striking range, it was not until Leyte Gulf in late 44 that carier airpower would dominate a battleship at sea.

In the postwar era, naval gunfire from battleships has proven invaluable time and again against hostile forces, Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, and Kuwait.

While the battleship may not be top dog anymore, it still has plenty of fight left in it and a role to play in today's naval operations if the need for forced entry against a hostile shoreline rises again.

searat12 wrote:

Actually, 'stumbled into it' is just about right!

Nice try...lol...I'm not biting...

Actually, 'stumbled into it' is just about right!

Manny,

We keep harping on the carrier/battleship question when there is no question.  Nobody here has claimed that battleships are better than carriers, only that they could still have a serious role.  There are scenarios in the littoral environment where carrier-based aircraft are not as well suited as battleships.  The Marines have long held this view, as an earlier post pointed out. Politically, though nobody wants to pay for them.  Why do you think that the USN has been pared down to 12 carriers? Congress does not like paying  for them, either.

Bill Morrison

searat12 wrote:

PaintsWithBrush wrote: This thread has been a true blast to read. Obviously, there is much love for the battleship. I still believe the aircraft carrier and the ballistic missile submarine are the top dogs of the modern sea force but they do need their supporting cast to perform at their best. Warfare evolves and certain designs fall by the wayside. That does not diminish what they once were, it just means that the needs of commanders have changed and newer weapons have emerged that fill those needs to a better degree. There can be no doubt, if another "hot spot" flares up in the world tomorrow, President Obama is not going to ask "Where are the battleships"?, his first question is going to be: "Where is the nearest carrier"? Well, that is true, the submarine and aircraft carrier are the current 'top dogs' of the modern seaforce, but again, that is because there are no battleships in service.  For the same reason, Obama will of course ask for the nearest carrier in the event of a hotspot, because that is what is available NOW (though back in the 80's, the battleships were called on to Middle East service several times, cruising off the coast of Lebanon, and Libya, and the Persian Gulf too.).  And the Marines and other US forces in the area were very happy to have them do so, as those big guns and missiles suddenly showing up either offshore, or in the harbor is something that EVERYONE takes notice of, and as was clearly demonstrated in Kuwait, and in Baghdad, for very good reason!  Really, this is something like the old 'chicken and egg' scenario.  The biggest reason the existing battleships are no longer in service is not that they can't 'do the job,' but because they were designed in the 1930's, were completed in the '40's, and that is some 60 years worth of wear and tear and an awful lot of of miles under the keels, and the cost of replacing the engines and upgrading other systems was prohibitive in the post Cold-War environment (just like after 'the war to end all wars,' with much the same result).  At the same time the battleships were taken out of commission, several armored and mech infantry divisions were also demobilized, but with no talk of them being in any way 'outmoded.'  Can you imagine any submarine remaining in the first rank after 60 years?  Or a carrier, or any of its aircraft, or any other weapon system?  Yet with comparatively small modifications, the battleships have managed to do so, always rising to the needs and technology of the moment.  And once again, the technology to build replacement battleships no longer exists, not in the US, not anywhere.   And since no other nation has the wherewithall to either challenge the US Navy for supremacy at sea, or the technology to do so either, why try to resurrect what has for the moment become a 'redundant weapon system?'  I will say one thing though, if another navy DOES eventually make a bid to challenge the US (say, the Chinese or a resurgent Russia), it would not at all surprise me to see the old battleships dragged out of their berths and upgraded once again (it has happened three times in the last 60 years!).  Why?  Because there isn't anything else like them, no-one else can build them, and thus, there is no opposing military 'answer' to their existence if they showed up all of a sudden-like, and for that reason alone, they constitute a wonderful 'ace in the hole' for the US Navy that no-one else can match....

The Navy has bent over backwards to make a place for the sole BB to remain in service, IMO---and becuase, IMO, the sentimentality factor plays into it...

I mean, are we to believe that the carrier just stumbled into the position it is in today by accident...If you remember, in the 20's, Billy Mitchell was COURT MARTIALED for daring to challenge the supremecy of the BB.  Every Admiral wanted him drummed out of the service in disgrace (or worse)...that's because, as many in this Forum believe, that the BB was, and always would be, the King of the seas....history proved Billy right and despite all of the resistance, airpower (and hence the carrier) won out...not because it was more favored, but because it was the superior weapon... 

PaintsWithBrush wrote:

This thread has been a true blast to read. Obviously, there is much love for the battleship. I still believe the aircraft carrier and the ballistic missile submarine are the top dogs of the modern sea force but they do need their supporting cast to perform at their best. Warfare evolves and certain designs fall by the wayside. That does not diminish what they once were, it just means that the needs of commanders have changed and newer weapons have emerged that fill those needs to a better degree. There can be no doubt, if another "hot spot" flares up in the world tomorrow, President Obama is not going to ask "Where are the battleships"?, his first question is going to be: "Where is the nearest carrier"?

Well, that is true, the submarine and aircraft carrier are the current 'top dogs' of the modern seaforce, but again, that is because there are no battleships in service.  For the same reason, Obama will of course ask for the nearest carrier in the event of a hotspot, because that is what is available NOW (though back in the 80's, the battleships were called on to Middle East service several times, cruising off the coast of Lebanon, and Libya, and the Persian Gulf too.).  And the Marines and other US forces in the area were very happy to have them do so, as those big guns and missiles suddenly showing up either offshore, or in the harbor is something that EVERYONE takes notice of, and as was clearly demonstrated in Kuwait, and in Baghdad, for very good reason! 

Really, this is something like the old 'chicken and egg' scenario.  The biggest reason the existing battleships are no longer in service is not that they can't 'do the job,' but because they were designed in the 1930's, were completed in the '40's, and that is some 60 years worth of wear and tear and an awful lot of of miles under the keels, and the cost of replacing the engines and upgrading other systems was prohibitive in the post Cold-War environment (just like after 'the war to end all wars,' with much the same result).  At the same time the battleships were taken out of commission, several armored and mech infantry divisions were also demobilized, but with no talk of them being in any way 'outmoded.' 

Can you imagine any submarine remaining in the first rank after 60 years?  Or a carrier, or any of its aircraft, or any other weapon system?  Yet with comparatively small modifications, the battleships have managed to do so, always rising to the needs and technology of the moment. 

And once again, the technology to build replacement battleships no longer exists, not in the US, not anywhere.   And since no other nation has the wherewithall to either challenge the US Navy for supremacy at sea, or the technology to do so either, why try to resurrect what has for the moment become a 'redundant weapon system?'  I will say one thing though, if another navy DOES eventually make a bid to challenge the US (say, the Chinese or a resurgent Russia), it would not at all surprise me to see the old battleships dragged out of their berths and upgraded once again (it has happened three times in the last 60 years!).  Why?  Because there isn't anything else like them, no-one else can build them, and thus, there is no opposing military 'answer' to their existence if they showed up all of a sudden-like, and for that reason alone, they constitute a wonderful 'ace in the hole' for the US Navy that no-one else can match....

warshipguy wrote:

I stand corrected. But, it in no way changes my basic point of view. One can equally argue that, by sinking HMS Glorious, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau proved the superiority of battleships over carriers. But, that would be preposterous. Neither PoW or Repulse had updated AA weapons or fire control that were later fitted to Allied battleships.  I will restate that no Allied battleship was lost to airpower after December, 1941. Bill Morrison

A lot of that is because the flat-tops became the prime targets...there are tons of instances in WW2 where Japanese planes overflew BB's and other vessels as they fought their way to the carriers...

...that's also why the CA was always in the center of battlegroups--they were the prime target, because they posed the biggest threat to other surface vessels... 

I stand corrected. But, it in no way changes my basic point of view. One can equally argue that, by sinking HMS Glorious, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau proved the superiority of battleships over carriers. But, that would be preposterous.

Neither PoW or Repulse had updated AA weapons or fire control that were later fitted to Allied battleships.  I will restate that no Allied battleship was lost to airpower after December, 1941.

Bill Morrison

This thread has been a true blast to read. Obviously, there is much love for the battleship.
I still believe the aircraft carrier and the ballistic missile submarine are the top dogs of the modern sea force but they do need their supporting cast to perform at their best.
Warfare evolves and certain designs fall by the wayside. That does not diminish what they once were, it just means that the needs of commanders have changed and newer weapons have emerged that fill those needs to a better degree.
There can be no doubt, if another "hot spot" flares up in the world tomorrow, President Obama is not going to ask "Where are the battleships"?, his first question is going to be: "Where is the nearest carrier"?

warshipguy wrote:

Yet, no American or British battleships were sunk by aircraft after Pearl Harbor.

Prince of Wales and Repulse???

Speaking as a retired Submariner, you just won my heart! But they, too, have their limitations.

Bill Morrison

 

Admiral Rickover just stopped in.

He wants you to know that nuclear submarines are in fact the new capital ships of the navy, and both carriers are BB's are nothing but expensive targets.

(for those of you who are wondering, Rickover looks good. In fact, he was positively glowing.)

Yet, no American or British battleships were sunk by aircraft after Pearl Harbor.  Many of them came under intense aircraft attack in the Pacific and Mediterranean, yet none were sunk. A can't think of any that were even so heavily damaged that they couldn't fight, except Pennsylvania.  This fact is due in large part to the heavy and modern AA weapons each carried.  This armament was far superior to that of the Axis navies.

Some might argue that the Allies had control of the air and that Axis aircraft could not get through.  Tell that to the survivors of the radar picket ships, the survivors of the Princeton, or the Franklin.  And, the Axis had air control throughout much of the Mediterranean campaign.  Yet, the battleships successfully fought off many air attacks.

It is an irrelevant issue today. The only navy that operates aircraft carriers in number is the U.S. Navy. Again, most navies center their offensive capabilities on ships that carry missiles. There are several arguments for this.  Carriers have become prohibitively expensive to maintain and operate. Additionally, why waste pilot's lives when a saturation attack by missiles can be just as effective?  In other words, carriers are no longer the threat to surface operations.  The situation is far different than in 1939, when the Japanese , Americans, and British had powerful carrier fleets.

Given the technological shift towards missile capable ships and the relative decline of naval airpower, building a durable, stout modern battleship makes sense. Also, given that strategic ****** to littoral warfare, having ships with powerful gun armament makes sense.

Bill Morrison

searat12 wrote:

That's pretty much correct, with one exception.... If there had simply been as many battleships around in WW2 as there was in WW1, you would have seen battleships used as intended and as designed, in squadrons, squaring off against other squadrons, with carriers forming a very useful adjunct, but not so much THE capital ship as they in fact turned out to be.  As for the 'panzers-at-Dunkirk' scenario, it is important to remember the crucial role played by battleships at Normandy, and for quite some time afterwards in the drive across France, breaking up panzer columns and assembly points, and generally making life a misery for the Germans... And much the same happened at Anzio in Italy as well... In other words, it wasn't the role that was diminished, or the battleships ability to fill that role per se, but that there simply were not enough around to fill it (just like there is a role for a tank battalion.  But if you only have a platoon of tanks, you can't expect that platoon to function, or have the same impact as a tank battalion, nor can you claim that because the tank platoon can't fill the role of the tank battalion, that somehow tanks as a whole are 'obsolete'). Verstehen?

I see your point and agree with you in part as to why there weren't the larger numbers of BB's in WW2 as there was in WW1: treaties, limits, etc...

However, others have pointed out that the existing number of BB's that the British had at the begining of WW2 was already bankrupting the English economy, so I guess we can't have it both ways...thank God for the limitations, otherwise the British may have been totally insolvent and their economy ruined more than it was...

Let's assume though that there were no limitations on tonnage and navies built more BB's...IMO, that would have just meant more targets for airplanes than actually occured in the event...it probably saved lives that there weren't more BB's...