RoG Bismarck, Pray for me!

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

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

searat12 wrote:

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

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

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.

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.

 

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"... 

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!!!!!

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...

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)

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.

 

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...

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'...

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

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 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.

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

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.

 

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:

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...

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.

The problem with submarines for missions like this is precisely because they CAN'T be seen.  There is ALWAYS a submarine near NKorea, but if you don't see it, you can pretend it isn't there.  But a battleship cruising up and down the coast in plain view cannot be dismissed so lightly, and provides undeniable proof of not only the presence of the US Navy, but its relative disregard for anything the NKoreans might care to throw at it.  This was of great value during the crisis in Lebanon, and worked very well in the Persian Gulf too vis a vis the Iranians, and was easpecially true after everybody got to see just what a battleship can unleash.  Even just cruising around firing 'practise' rounds, the thunder of those guns carries a very long way indeed...... Gunboat diplomacy' has been around for many, many years, and the psychological factor still works today.

Just think about a rowdy bar.... a sleazy little weasel with a .32 under his coat sneaks in and hides in a dark corner that no-one notices.  Yeah, he CAN kill somebody by shooting them in the back, but his mere presence there doesn't affect what is going on in the bar (that's a submarine!).  Then, a cop car car pulls up outside with his lights flashing, but as long as the cops stay outside, it doesn't really affect what's going on in the bar (that's an aircraft carrier!).  Then a 300 Lbs linebacker walks into the bar in full body armor and carrying a sawed-off riot-pump 12 gauge shotgun and has a look around.  The place goes silent, the piano stops playing, the card games stop, and suspicious characters start edging for the back door (that's a battleship!)!

As for Pearl Harbor and Midway, Pearl was always going to be a surprise hit and run attack, but at Midway, the Japanese battlefleet WAS there, and its purpose (once the Amrican aircraft carriers had been disabled or destroyed), was to wade in and deal with the American surface fleet 'mano a mano.'  And this might STILL have happened if the Japanese carrier fleet hadn't been so comprehensively destroyed.  If even ONE of the fleet carriers had survived,  Yamamoto was prepared to send in the battleships, but NO carriers, meant they would be heading into a situation they had no advanced preparation or reconaissance for.....

searat12,
Considering the fact that just one nuclear missile submarine carries more firepower than every battleship ever built by every nation across the expanse of history, I think the submarine amounts to far more than a "sleazy guy with a .32" in any situation.
Your love of the battleship is truly undeniable, but one F/A18 flying supersonic at treetop level over his palace would create all the "thunder" Lil Kim would need to convince him of the folly of his dreams.

Again, as a former submariner, Trident missiles are not usable in most political and military situations. For example, Great Britain had boomers during the Falklands campaign but they did not deter Argentina from invading British Territory.  And, that is a rational nation!  North Korea does not have rational leaders that could be deterred by the implicit threat of nuclear attack or retaliation.

Bill Morrison

P.S. The axiom is that each boomer carries more explosive firepower than expended in every theater of every war in the twentieth century.

PaintsWithBrush wrote:

searat12, Considering the fact that just one nuclear missile submarine carries more firepower than every battleship ever built by every nation across the expanse of history, I think the submarine amounts to far more than a "sleazy guy with a .32" in any situation. Your love of the battleship is truly undeniable, but one F/A18 flying supersonic at treetop level over his palace would create all the "thunder" Lil Kim would need to convince him of the folly of his dreams.

It's not so much that I love the battleship, but I think you missed the point.  An FA-18 'flying over the palace' would be a direct act of war, and just his approach into NKorean airpsace would most likely have already caused a war, whether or not he was shot down or not, whether or not he was armed or not.  That's the problem with a carrier!  It cannot sit in plain sight, but must remain 'over the horizon' along with all its aircraft, and it cannot take a hit, or it blows sky high.  A submarine cannot remain on the surface (they are THE most delicate of ships, and it defeats the whole purpose of a submarne in the first place!), and anything else BUT a battleship would be liable to be sunk or made combat ineffective with one hit.  A battleship, however, is designed to be hit, multiple times, and still come up for more, with a counterpunch that would knock most nations on their butt, let alone other naval vessels.  No other ship has this capability.  For this reason, the battleship can sail in sight of land, just offshore, where everyone can see it, a menacing presence that cannot just be slapped down with a single shot.  That is the BIGGEST advantage of a battleship, that no other ship can match, not even the latest greatest of designs.  I think if you follow your argument to its logical conclusion, we don't need any ships at all, and can do everything that is needed via ICBM's launched from Nebraska; isn't that true?

warshipguy wrote:

Again, as a former submariner, Trident missiles are not usable in most political and military situations. For example, Great Britain had boomers during the Falklands campaign but they did not deter Argentina from invading British Territory.  And, that is a rational nation!  North Korea does not have rational leaders that could be deterred by the implicit threat of nuclear attack or retaliation. Bill Morrison P.S. The axiom is that each boomer carries more explosive firepower than expended in every theater of every war in the twentieth century.

If only the Hood had still been around...Argentinia would have never dared invade the Falklands...

warshipguy wrote:

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.

This has been a most interesting discussion! Years ago I read the history of the New Jersey.  It mentioned that when it went to Vietnam it was very successful at doing jobs that the Air Force and Navy Carriers were unable to accomplish.  One specific case was a bridge in North Vietnam located in a narrow canyon and protected by an impressive array of anti-aircraft missles and batteries.  Both Air groups tried for weeks to take out this bridge, with no result other than the loss of several aircraft.  The New Jersey was called in and dropped the bridge into the river in twenty minutes!  The Lady was so successful that when the New Jersey left Vietnam for replenishment at Long Beach the North Vietnamese at the Peace Table said they would leave the Peace Talks and not return if the New Jersey returned to Vietnam!  They did NOT say this about any other warship or military group that we had deployed.  The New Jersey scared the c**p out of the North Vietnamese.  Its big guns could reach 75% of both countries, and it didn't even have Tomahawks back then.  Of course, the wimps we had in power, at that time, caved in and the Lady never went back to Vietnam.  Coulda been a much shorter conflict.  We should have sent the Lady back and added one, or more (wouldn't have cost any more than the war did anyway), of her sisters also.

Searat12's analogy is, IMHO, great.  Except the sleazy little weasel should be a small statured SEAL in a trenchcoat with many weapons hidden.  Doesn't look like much, but he could waste the whole bar in a heartbeat if he needs to.  I agree that the BBs are no longer the "Top Dog", but they ARE uniquely qualified to do certain missions that no other warship is capable of doing.  If they just weren't so gol-darned expensive to operate!  Just wanted to put in my 2 cents into this great discussion.  Meanwhile, what about the model??

tucchase wrote:

warshipguy wrote: 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. This has been a most interesting discussion! Years ago I read the history of the New Jersey.  It mentioned that when it went to Vietnam it was very successful at doing jobs that the Air Force and Navy Carriers were unable to accomplish.  One specific case was a bridge in North Vietnam located in a narrow canyon and protected by an impressive array of anti-aircraft missles and batteries.  Both Air groups tried for weeks to take out this bridge, with no result other than the loss of several aircraft.  The New Jersey was called in and dropped the bridge into the river in twenty minutes!  The Lady was so successful that when the New Jersey left Vietnam for replenishment at Long Beach the North Vietnamese at the Peace Table said they would leave the Peace Talks and not return if the New Jersey returned to Vietnam!  They did NOT say this about any other warship or military group that we had deployed.  The New Jersey scared the c**p out of the North Vietnamese.  Its big guns could reach 75% of both countries, and it didn't even have Tomahawks back then.  Of course, the wimps we had in power, at that time, caved in and the Lady never went back to Vietnam.  Coulda been a much shorter conflict.  We should have sent the Lady back and added one, or more (wouldn't have cost any more than the war did anyway), of her sisters also. Searat12's analogy is, IMHO, great.  Except the sleazy little weasel should be a small statured SEAL in a trenchcoat with many weapons hidden.  Doesn't look like much, but he could waste the whole bar in a heartbeat if he needs to.  I agree that the BBs are no longer the "Top Dog", but they ARE uniquely qualified to do certain missions that no other warship is capable of doing.  If they just weren't so gol-darned expensive to operate!  Just wanted to put in my 2 cents into this great discussion.  Meanwhile, what about the model??

If only we had more BB's we would have won the Vietnam War!!!

tucchase wrote:

warshipguy wrote: 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. This has been a most interesting discussion! Years ago I read the history of the New Jersey.  It mentioned that when it went to Vietnam it was very successful at doing jobs that the Air Force and Navy Carriers were unable to accomplish.  One specific case was a bridge in North Vietnam located in a narrow canyon and protected by an impressive array of anti-aircraft missles and batteries.  Both Air groups tried for weeks to take out this bridge, with no result other than the loss of several aircraft.  The New Jersey was called in and dropped the bridge into the river in twenty minutes!  The Lady was so successful that when the New Jersey left Vietnam for replenishment at Long Beach the North Vietnamese at the Peace Table said they would leave the Peace Talks and not return if the New Jersey returned to Vietnam!  They did NOT say this about any other warship or military group that we had deployed.  The New Jersey scared the c**p out of the North Vietnamese.  Its big guns could reach 75% of both countries, and it didn't even have Tomahawks back then.  Of course, the wimps we had in power, at that time, caved in and the Lady never went back to Vietnam.  Coulda been a much shorter conflict.  We should have sent the Lady back and added one, or more (wouldn't have cost any more than the war did anyway), of her sisters also. Searat12's analogy is, IMHO, great.  Except the sleazy little weasel should be a small statured SEAL in a trenchcoat with many weapons hidden.  Doesn't look like much, but he could waste the whole bar in a heartbeat if he needs to.  I agree that the BBs are no longer the "Top Dog", but they ARE uniquely qualified to do certain missions that no other warship is capable of doing.  If they just weren't so gol-darned expensive to operate!  Just wanted to put in my 2 cents into this great discussion.  Meanwhile, what about the model??

Never thought of old Milhouse as a wimp before, I'll have to think on that. I can't find any reference to the bridge story, can you elaborate. It sounds to me like the BB tore up a lot of bunkers and tunnels though.

Manny commented tongue-in-cheek that, had Hood been around, Argentina would never have invaded the Falklands.    Granted, it is an overstatement, but one serious problem that the Royal Navy had was that the largest guns it had for shore bombardment were the 5" popguns on its destroyers.  Oh, well, here's to lessons never learned! 

Bill Morrison

warshipguy wrote:

Manny commented tongue-in-cheek that, had Hood been around, Argentina would never have invaded the Falklands.    Granted, it is an overstatement, but one serious problem that the Royal Navy had was that the largest guns it had for shore bombardment were the 5" popguns on its destroyers.  Oh, well, here's to lessons never learned!  Bill Morrison

yeah, otherwise Hood could have sat ofshore and shelled the Argentinians into submission, as the US did at Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Pelilieu, etc, etc, etc...