RoG Bismarck, Pray for me!

Quickly relegated to second line duty?  Seems to me they were the primary shore bombardment force, and the other 'old' battleships that were not at Pearl (The New Mexico class BB's) were sent all the way around from the Atlantic poste-haste, and constituted the only battlegroup defense in the Pacific in the event the Japanese decided to follow-up their air bombardment of Pearl with a more substantial force.... Why would they do that, if the battleships were 'obviously' obsolete (and apparently had JUST been proved so, so dramatically?)  As for 'mixed results' for battleship shore bombardment, besides the American efforts, the Japanese battleships and cruisers  kept the Marines and Army Air Corps on Guadalcanal in a constant state of alarm, disruption and destruction, with Henderson field under almost nightly bombardment, destroying hundreds of planes, cratering the airfield, blowing up fuel supplies, and killing hundreds of soldiers, Marines and airmen.  If it was not for the amazing efforts of the 'Seabees' and the constant flow of replacement aircraft shuttled in by the USS Enterprise and others, Guadalcanal could well have become a terrible defeat for the US!  And what finally stopped this carnage?  The USS Washington and the USS South Dakota!

Again, I am not saying that battleships are in any way 'better' than either aircraft carriers, or submarines, or any other weapon system for that matter.  Battleships had, and still have a role which no other ship can fulfill, and that is to sail directly into 'harm's way,' deliver the goods, and come out the other end regardless of incoming shells, missiles, planes, bombs, torpedoes, whatever.  The only thing that can effectively stop a squadron of battleships with its usual escort destroyers, etc, is another squadron of battleships..... They were never designed to operate as single ships, or really in groups less than four, and those that were lost at sea to air or submarine assets, were not being operated as designed, and so therefore these losses were both avoidable and to be expected (if you operate a submarine in war exclusively on the surface, it will be sunk, and very quickly, because it was not being operated as designed, yes?  Combat aircraft operated individually by themselves will soon be shot down by aircraft flying in groups, yes?  Same for battleships!).  In other words, you can  use a monkey wrench as a hammer, it just isn't a very good one!  I think I have said enough on this subject, and will now leave it to others to continue this discussion...

Manny,

That is not my point at all.  Air power sank half of Japan' battleships but so did surface ships.  Airpower sank one Italian battleship at sea and two in port.  Air power sank two British battleships, actually one battleship and one battlecruiser.  It did not sink 23 American battleships nor did it sink 16 British battleships. It failed to sink 4 Italian battleships and 2 German battleships and battlecruisers.

On the other hand, airpower did sink most Japanese aircraft carriers and three American carriers.  In fact more carriers were sunk by airpower at Midway and, again, at the Philippine Sea than at Pearl Harbor or Taranto.  Do you question the obsolescence of carriers based on how many were sunk by air power? I think not! That would be absurd.  But, that is the standard that you apply to battleships. 

warshipguy,
As Manstein's revenge pointed out in an earlier post, carriers were sunk in a greater number because the screening ships were bypassed in order to hit the highest value target, i.e., the ones they feared the most, the aircraft carrier.
By that line of reasoning, the Japanese soldiers who were on the islands bypassed during the island hopping campaign could claim the enemy was too terrified of their fighting ability to engage them directly.

I hope that you read my last post in its entirety . . . I said that it would be ridiculous to say that a particular type of warship is obsolete based upon its rate of being sunk by another form of warfare.  To say that battleships are obsolete because some were sunk or damaged by airpower is just as problematic as saying that, because an even larger number of aircraft carriers were sunk by aircraft, they are obsolete.

And, look at your history . . . American aircraft carriers were heavily protected by multi-layers of protection, including their CAP, and the screen of radar picket ships, destroyers, cruisers, and battleships.  In fact, BB AA fire was instrumental in protecting those carriers by mid-1943.  Carriers were not hit because aircraft ignored their screening vessels; most aircraft could not get through the screen.  USS Franklin was hit by a single kamikaze that did get through.  Imagine the destruction had more been able to do so.

As Searat12 has repeatedly pointed out, there are roles for the different types of ships.  Carriers cannot perform the functions of destroyers and cruisers, let alone those of submarines. Nor can those ships fulfil the roles of carriers. And, these roles change with changes in technology and tactical thought.  Are carriers obsolete because they are no longer the "eyes" of the fleet? Are submarines obsolete for the same reason?  And, will we ever see another torpedo attack by a force of destroyers? Of course not!  Their roles have changed beyond that. It is very simplistic to take an "either/or" approach and say that one type is obsolete because technology changed.  Like it or not, many more men would have been killed and many more carriers would have been sunk had the battleships not been there.

Bill Morrison

I'm sure we could find some use for the sabre and the gatling gun, but will it ever be seen on a modern battlefield today? I am now ending my participation in this spirited and lively debate as we are now going in circles...

PaintsWithBrush wrote:

warshipguy, As Manstein's revenge pointed out in an earlier post, carriers were sunk in a greater number because the screening ships were bypassed in order to hit the highest value target, i.e., the ones they feared the most, the aircraft carrier. By that line of reasoning, the Japanese soldiers who were on the islands bypassed during the island hopping campaign could claim the enemy was too terrified of their fighting ability to engage them directly.

....And of course, a carrier is a huge floating fuel and explosives depot with no armor to speak of, which will go up like a roman candle with just a single hit!

searat, i think it will take more then 1 hit to do what you describe. look at cvn enterprise & forrestal & possibly others of the supercarriers that have had massive explosions & fire that are still around years later in service or now decommisioned/sinkex.

Mansteins revenge wrote:

we are now going in circles...

 

Oddly, this is exactly what the Captain of the Bismark said....

DerOberst wrote:

Mansteins revenge wrote: we are now going in circles...   Oddly, this is exactly what the Captain of the Bismark said....

And with this comment, we have come full circle back to the Bismark. WHEW!

ddp59 wrote:

searat, i think it will take more then 1 hit to do what you describe. look at cvn enterprise & forrestal & possibly others of the supercarriers that have had massive explosions & fire that are still around years later in service or now decommisioned/sinkex.

Tell that to the captain of the 'Taiho,' hit by one torpedo and blew skyhigh....

Actualy Taiho did not "blow sky high" from single torpedo hit that she took, at least not immediately. But she did explode later as a result of fuel vapors that resulted from her torpedo damage, the same as USS Lexington at Coral Sea. Taiho was first able to launch her air group after taking the torpedo hit. 

I suppose a discussion of battleship survivabilty against torpedos is in order... after all Bismark was damaged enough by a single torpedo to allow surface groups to close and sink her.

Yes, aircraft carriers are venerable because of their large capacities of aviation fuel on board. I, nor anyone else, ever made the claim that they weren't.
The battleships tactical and strategic usefulness has past. That is a fact, sad to some obviously, but a fact none the less. If battleships were the be all, end all ships some would hope, they would be produced today. There is no such concept as "cost prohibitive" when it comes to military spending, even when a weapon is a dud, as long as it has dedicated champions backing it (V22).
The aircraft carrier will reach obsolete status one day, sooner than its die hard supporters would like to be sure, but that won't change the facts or the outcome.
They will have served their purpose, with distinction and honor, and will be remembered fondly, but retire they will.

I don't think anyone here has made any claims that the battleship is the 'be all, end all' in any way shape or form.  What HAS been said is that there is no other ship that can do what it does (just like there is no other ship that can do what a carrier does, or a submarine does, etc.).  And the carrier will undoubtedly survive, as long as there is a need for 'force projection' that requires multiple on-call sorties by aircraft just about anywhere in the world.  And that mission is unlikely to change until combat aircraft no longer require fuel, or re-arming.....  As for the Taiho..... Boom!  One torpedo, scratch one flattop (and that one even had armored decks!).  USS Lexington blew up just like Taiho, and for the same reason... fuel explosions!  USS Wasp = three torpedoes, then... Boom!  Akagi = one bomb.... Boom!  HMS Ark Royal = one torpedo.... Boom!!!  Soryu = three bombs....Boom!!  Hiryu = four bombs.....Boom!!!  Shokaku = three torpedoes..... Boom!!!!  Does this sound like a trend to you??  You never get that kind of vulnerability to battle damage in a battleship at sea, no, not ever!  And THAT is what makes a battleship unique and unmatched for its job.... 

Out of pure curiousity, does anyone have any information as to the thickness of the typical BB's hull bottom?

Depends on the battleship.  Late designs often had triple bottoms and very elaborate anti-torpedo defenses, both internally, and with bulges, compression tubes, you name it..... The South Dakotas and Iowas also had their outside props and shafts built into a large skeg, thus protecting the inner prop shafts from torpedoes as well (which was not the case for Bismarck).....

my grandfather was on the ark when she got hit. she didnt blow up at all she sank next day while under tow purely because the dmg control wasnt upto scratch alot of lessons were learned from that

ps im on your side about the battleship having a place in modern navies we wouldve benifitted in the falklands

pps the argies were terrified of our subs or more accurately the POSSIBILITY that attack subs were in the area they got an incorrect intel report saying we had them in the area early on (we didnt) and they changed their planning because of this!

Oh yes!  Subs DEFINITELY have a very valuable role to play, no doubt about it, and are more deadly today than at any other time... (and the Argies found that out when the Belgrano went down)

So like 9 pages and no in progress pics....discussing subs now.....WTH? 

Firecaptain wrote:

So like 9 pages and no in progress pics....

Please the "Bis" is one of four kits to be recieving some bench time lately, there's not alot to see.  Hull, bridge & con, funnel, upper deck, aft/ fire cont & hangers are assembled. These are undergoing, carveing, shaveing & sanding to ready them for, PE hatches, doors and ladders etc.  When I have something cool to see I will post WIP's.  I feel I've bitten off a lot to chew with this kit as the threads subtitle ("pray for me !") attests, lots of correcting & refineing as well as an ambitous(autum 1940 Baltic sea trials camo scheme.)are in the works.  Thanks for your intrest though.