Were 20th century battleships pointless?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Patroklos


We haven't used nukes since their inception. Most would say they are not nearly as useful now as they used to be in our none polar world. But were they never useful at all during the 40 years of the Cold War just because we never actually used one in anger?

I was thinking something similar. But the analogy of nukes and battleships can't be made on the grounds you state alone. The further question to be asked is whether a nation without battleships (or inferior battleships) were at a disadvantage however you define that to be.

If one side didn't have nukes, you have serious problems on the other side. Is that true of battleships? I don't know. I think it is much more dependent on the nations at hand and their geography.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Patroklos



Large fleet carriers did not exist until just prior to WWII. Proper BB began to replace Dreadnaughts prior to WWI. That means there was 30+ years where BBs were the balls. Just because there happened to not be a major war during their era doesn't mean we should assume they were not useful.

I disagree. The United States had several fleet carriers prior to Pearl Harbor, but they came into existence by accident. At the time when the Washington Treaty was put into effect the United States was building two battlecruisers. The US got permission to convert the hulls into aircraft carriers, and thus the first two fleet carriers were constructed. Japan eventually built several carriers nearly as large, but Great Britain settled for carriers able to handle fewer planes although sporting armored flight decks.

[chequita guevara]

One battleship managed to scare the pants out of the whole British Navy. The RN couldn't even sink it. The Germans had to scuttle the Bismark in order for your shipping lanes to be safe.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

"Scuttle"? It got pounded to bits by the King George V and Norfolk, before being fininshed off by torpedos from the Dorestshire. That was after a Swordfish managed to wreck its steering.

[BeBMan]

That's a long debate, some say the Brits downed it,
some claim it was scuttled by the crew, and refer to evidence from Ballard's and Cameron's underwater expeditions who said they could not find enough damage on the hull to support the claim that it was sunk by gunfire/torpedoes.

[Arrian]

It's irrelevant. The Brits damaged it badly - badly enough that she was done for.

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

I disagree. The United States had several fleet carriers prior to Pearl Harbor, but they came into existence by accident. At the time when the Washington Treaty was put into effect the United States was building two battlecruisers. The US got permission to convert the hulls into aircraft carriers, and thus the first two fleet carriers were constructed. Japan eventually built several carriers nearly as large, but Great Britain settled for carriers able to handle fewer planes although sporting armored flight decks.

Exactly, both Lexington and Saratoga were commissioned in 1927, almost 10 years after WWI, and were modifications rather than optimized from the keel up aircraft carriers. The first true fleet carrier for the US was the Yorktown, commissioned in 1937, almost 20 years after WWI. And that is just the carriers, what about effective maritime naval aviation? Within most of that time frame BBs would have ruled supreme.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Arrian
It's irrelevant. The Brits damaged it badly - badly enough that she was done for.

-Arrian

Well, of course we know that British aggressors are responsible for everything, but if we're talking what exactly sent it to the bottom.....

Seriously, that in the end the Bismarck had no chance to survive this one is clear, but I think it's relevant for the "are BBs pointless yes or no" debate if a ship like this could survive heavy gunfire and possibly torpedo hits for quite some time.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by BeBro


The interwar period had various countries experimenting with dive bombers to make air power even more deadly, esp. against ships. But by then there only were a handfull of new BBs built for every major power (though the major factor here was probably costs, not necessarily awareness that their days were numbered), most others were old WWI style BBs which had been kept in service for decades, often modernized. Shortly before and during WWII the RN got five King George V class builds plus at the end of the war one Vanguard, Italy got three new Littorios, Germany the two Bismarcks and two Scharnhorsts, France two Richelieus, Japan two Yamatos etc. the rest were all old ships. Only the US built quite a lot of new BBs during that time. OTOH they also built lots of CVs, so they could form big surface battle groups incl. carriers which did provide enough air cover.

In the Context of the European War Battleships were pointless(save as bombard ships) during WW2, thr RN started and scrapped several because, frankly, they needed to spend the resources on destroyers and Merchant Tonnage.

The United States, however, was going to be fighting the IJN more or less on it's own(except very early and late in the war ), and in any event had the ability to bury it's opponents through industry anyway.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Exactly, both Lexington and Saratoga were commissioned in 1927, almost 10 years after WWI, and were modifications rather than optimized from the keel up aircraft carriers. The first true fleet carrier for the US was the Yorktown, commissioned in 1937, almost 20 years after WWI. And that is just the carriers, what about effective maritime naval aviation? Within most of that time frame BBs would have ruled supreme.

You're also forgetting about submarines, destroyers, and torpedo boats.

A single battleship weighed as much as ten or more destroyers. I'm willing to bet that a squadron of destroyers could have easily destroyed a single battleship.

[Dis]

they saw some decent action in ww2, not enough to justify the price imho.

hell, they saw action in the gulf war, again, not enough to justify the price.

perhaps they were a bit of a deterrent, but I doubt it. I'd say they were pointless after 1941.

[Patroklos]

You're also forgetting about submarines, destroyers, and torpedo boats.

No I am not, and niether did the Navys of the time. Well rounded forces were the order of the day. Or are you suggesting DDs, SSs and TBs were the premier weapon relative to the BB?

A single battleship weighed as much as ten or more destroyers. I'm willing to bet that a squadron of destroyers could have easily destroyed a single battleship.

You would be very wrong. There is no weapon on a destroyer (even today) that could penetrate a BBs armor. You could try and skip in with torps, but a DDs guns are not going to get you a kill.

Leyte Gulf is a good illustration of this. A number of DEs closed and engaged IJN Heavy Cruisers and BBs landing hundreds of 5" hits on the larger vessels but in the end caused damage only to the unarmored portions of the superstructer. The carriers being escorted were holed dozens of times and only avoided destruction because their unarmored hulls did not set off the Japanese armor peircing rounds. Superior tactics or munitions on one side or the other does not speak of a platform in and of itself.

BBs were not invincible, but there is no getting around the fact that until fleet carriers became common in the late 30's and paired with effective naval aviation around the same time, BBs were the swinging dicks of the high seas.

[lord of the mark]

has anyone done a decent commercial Alt History about a world war in the 1920s, in which BBs do all they were capable of?

[Patroklos]

It would be cool. I have read alot about what a real fleet action in WWI would have been like. I actually like reading the contemporary stuff stored in The Citadel's and Naval War College's libraries. We Americans were really rooting for an all out slug fest, It was like watching the History Channel for years before we actually joined in, then the tone changed a bit.

[PLATO]

Personally, I don't think the usefulness of the BB's as artillery platforms is given enough credit. Airpower could not deliver the sustained fire rates against shore facilities any where near like the BB's could. Nor could airpower deliver the same punch as the big guns could.

Dad used to tell the story about the invasion at Saipan and the thing all the Marines really appreciated was the sustained fire from the 8 Battleships present prior to the landing.