quote:

Originally posted by dfez:
The glaring problem with your logic, Rommel, is that you are making Angels Dancing On the Head of a Pin Arguments. All the ships you cite were put out of action as the result of air attack; it is of no significance whether it was from land or sea based aircraft.

Totally false. Any carrier afloat at the time all the way to today would be at a severe disadvantage against ground-based planes as well (simply due to the design constraints of the carrier's aircraft). Vulnerability to ground-based planes isn't exclusive to battleships.

quote:

Bismarck was rendered helpless by a single hit from a biplane so the Navy could finish her off

Which I covered two posts above this had you taken the time to actually read it. It was a golden bb, against a ship that was already damaged after a battle with another battleship and battlecruiser (which did far more overall damage). Every other hit the swordfish made against the Bismarck was ineffective (only one crew member was lost).

quote:

Tirpitz had it's full compliment of fine German AA, a ring of land based AA, and alleged air cover and that couldn't save her from big, dumb bombs.

She also wasn't in a full combat-ready status, the other criteria you seemed to miss. The Germans didn't even consider it a major warship prior to its destruction due to the fact that they didn't consider it possible to make Tirpitz ready for action. You also seem to neglect that seven carriers attacked the Tirpitz in Operation Tungsten five months earlier and failed to penetrate its armor.

quote:

Yamato and Musashi were underway at sea with at least some protection in the form of screening ships. These ships were all equipped with armaments out side the Naval Treaty and the very best their nations could fit them with and all these ships are now lying on the bottom of the ocean along with most of their crews.

Even ignoring the fact that Japan had notoriously bad AA, the Yamato was outmassed by over five times by the carriers present at Operation Ten-Go. The result would've been the same if it had been facing other BBs, or if it had been a carrier. Operation Ten-Go was a suicide mission and the Japanese knew it; the crew was even allowed/ordered to partake in sake, part of the ritual Kamikaze pilots went through before making their final flight. Its escort was irrelevant - note the fact that I never mentioned the CVs' escort (each carrier had 8 escorts, of roughly 10,000 tons a pop, 12 carriers, do the math).

It wouldn't have made any difference whatsoever what class of ship the Yamato was in that battle. If it had been a carrier it still would've been sunk. In fact, they did have a Yamato-sized carrier, the Shinano, and it was sunk by far less, likewise for U.S. supercarriers in modern war games. Whoops.

An advantage to the weapons of the battle ship is that they can't be shot out of the sky nor can they be disabled electronicly.

In our current military theatres, we have other options that can project firepower, and defend themselves much more efficiently than the traditional battleship. However, we don't know what the future holds. the niche that the battleship originally occupied may reopen someday.

Rommel, you are just regurgitating the same arguments that battleship apologists have made since Billy Mitchell and the Ostfriesland. To quote from Mitchell's report, "sea craft of all kinds, up to and including the most modern battleships, can be destroyed easily by b0mbs dropped from aircraft...). Since this has been borne out over and over and over again by real world experience, I'm inclined to believe it. No amount of quibbling over details and claiming bad luck or unfavorable conditions changes the historical outcome. I don't favor sending our guys to sea in sitting ducks so we can prove our ability to spend money. The primary mission of a machine of war should be to bring it's crew home alive after it's mission. There are many ways currently available to accomplish these missions without putting large crews at risk and at much less cost of construction and operation.

quote:

Originally posted by dfez:
Rommel, you are just regurgitating the same arguments that battleship apologists have made since Billy Mitchell and the Ostfriesland.

And you haven't offered anything but anecdotal evidence to refute any of them, and in the case of those anecdotes ignored every pertinent fact.

quote:

To quote from Mitchell's report, "sea craft of all kinds, up to and including the most modern battleships, can be destroyed easily by b0mbs dropped from aircraft...). Since this has been borne out over and over and over again by real world experience, I'm inclined to believe it. No amount of quibbling over details and claiming bad luck or unfavorable conditions changes the historical outcome.

Conditions and Details are all important, and if those facts trouble you, I'm sorry but your ignorance of the conditions of actual battles you reference aren't my problem, nor is your failure to fully read well, apparently anything. As a minor example of the importance of details, you ignored the details of the very quote you just used to support your argument, look at the very beginning of the quote you gave. "Sea Craft OF ALL KINDS" - emphasis mine. What are carriers? Exactly. Thus, why bother having them either in an era of ground-based transcontinental bombers?

Nevermind that it doesn't provide a context. Sea Craft of all kinds can easily be destroyed by modern anti-ship missiles, 16" guns, torpedoes, etc.

And you still haven't refuted the examples I provided, e.g. that the largest carrier of WWII was sunk by assets far lighter and less expensive than itself, and that in multiple war games, even modern American supercarriers have been "sunk" by decades' old diesel-powered subs.

quote:

I don't favor sending our guys to sea in sitting ducks so we can prove our ability to spend money. The primary mission of a machine of war should be to bring it's crew home alive after it's mission. There are many ways currently available to accomplish these missions without putting large crews at risk and at much less cost of construction and operation.

You haven't proven carriers do that (and carriers have just as many crew as a battleship). Largest CV of WWII? Sunk with far fewer assets of far lesser overall value. Modern American supercarriers? "Sunk" in wargames against decades' old diesel-powered subs. Tell me, the last time the U.S. used the Iowas, how many were sunk?

By the end of 1943, all Battleship constructions was suspended because they were no longer considered worth the cost. The USS Kentucky was supposes to be an Iowa class on steroids with a fourth 16" turret. It was re ordered as another Iowa class in order to support carriers but even then, it was declared surplus. It was made watertight and launched in order to make room for Carrier construction. The uncompleted hulk was later scrapped. As of now, all Battleships have been stricken from the nval register meanining there are no Battleship available for re activation. This makes any arguement moot.

This may seem anecdotal to you, but the US Battleships Oklahoma, Arizona, California, West Virginia, and Nevada, the British ships Repulse and Prince of Wales, the Italian ships Roma, Caio Dailio, and Conte Di Cavour, The German ships Bismarck and Tirpitz, and the Japanese Battleships Haruna, Musashi and Yamato were all sunk or rendered helpless by air attack. I don't quite see why you fail to see a pattern here; apparently the rest of the world's navies did. Hence a world total of 0 battleships now in service, 0 under construction and 0 on the drawing boards. I'm not the one denying the lessons of history here. The pertinent fact is that all these ships couldn't defend themselves from air attack and ended up on the bottom of the sea. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was saying carriers weren't a vulnerable, I never said anything of the sort, but as long as they can survive, they can perform a much wider range of missions over a much wider area. As bernie says, the argument is moot anyway-it ain't gonna happen.

quote:

Originally posted by dfez:
This may seem anecdotal to you, but the US Battleships Oklahoma, Arizona, California, West Virginia, and Nevada, the British ships Repulse and Prince of Wales, the Italian ships Roma, Caio Dailio, and Conte Di Cavour, The German ships Bismarck and Tirpitz, and the Japanese Battleships Haruna, Musashi and Yamato were all sunk or rendered helpless by air attack. I don't quite see why you fail to see a pattern here; apparently the rest of the world's navies did.

All but two of which fell into one of two criteria a.) artificially hamstrung by the Washington Treaty b.) not in a full combat-ready status.

Battleships sunk in port at Pearl don't qualify (not combat-ready, had the CVs been there, in all likelihood would be at the bottom too, nevermind that the U.S. wasn't even at war). the Bismarck doesn't qualify (sustained far more overall damage in the battle against the Hood and Prince of Whales before engaged by aircraft, was never sunk by aircraft), the Tirpitz doesn't qualify (wasn't even classified as a major warship by the Germans prior to its sinking, and was attacked by seven carriers which failed to so much as penetrate its armor five months before it was sunk, where it also wasn't combat ready). Yamato (outmassed by five times by the enemy assets). There is indeed a pattern.

And saying that's merely quibbling over details demonstrates the utmost in ignorance in the subject. It would be no different than saying that they were sunk by aircraft (some of which you listed weren't, but we'll ignore that) or the class of the sinking ship and the ship that sunk is merely "quibbling over details" and thus irrelevant, just as valid.

For your point to hold true, you'd have to show that a CV in the same circumstances as the above ships would've remained afloat, something you've never even attempted.

The largest class of CVs afloat both in the WWII-era and the modern era has either been sunk in actual combat, or "sunk" in wargames - and by assets utterly insignificant compared to what sunk the Yamato or many of the other BBs in question. The largest CV of WWII? Sunk by sub, despite having escorts and vastly outmassing its opposition. Modern U.S. supercarriers? "Sunk" in wargames by decades-old diesel-powered subs, and have been tailed by such subs while at sea.

I guess that's why only diesel-powered subs and DDs are the only warships in the ocean... oh, wait.

quote:

Hence a world total of 0 battleships now in service, 0 under construction and 0 on the drawing boards.

Which is false in and of itself depending upon how you define "battleship", the Kirov-class battlecruisers operated by Russia are still in service. Despite their designation as battlecruisers, they actually have tonnages equivalent to the battleships of WWI (and over twice the displacement of the so-called "pocket battleships" of WWII), being just shy of the total weight limit of the Washington Treaty for BBs.

Incidentally, the appearance of the Kirov-class in the 1980's contributed to the Iowas being activated then, too.

quote:

I'm not the one denying the lessons of history here. The pertinent fact is that all these ships couldn't defend themselves from air attack and ended up on the bottom of the sea.

If you ignore every detail of the individual battles, sure. Otherwise the claim you're not ignoring the history in the face of inconvenient facts and details to the contrary is a bald-faced lie. To ignore those details and conditions with the totally feeble "that's quibbling" (which is tantamount to saying "I don't actually know anything about the actual battles") makes it totally meaningless to even bother mentioning the class of ship that was sunk and what it was sunk by, after all, those are trifling details too. I said it before, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

quote:

Totally false. Any carrier afloat at the time all the way to today would be at a severe disadvantage against ground-based planes as well (simply due to the design constraints of the carrier's aircraft).

This is totally wrong for modern carrier basied aircraft, and has been since the mid-1960's when the F-4 entered service. The F-18, F-4 and F14 were all designed for carrier use, and all were also opperated from fixed land bases as...ground based aircraft. The F-22 goes the otherway, in being a ground based aircraft that is being turned into a carrier capable fighter.
WW2 era carrier aircraft are a different matter. While it is true that most carrier aircraft in WW2 were not equal to their ground baised counterparts at the start of the war, this had more to do with Navies decision's in developing carrier aircraft (Or in other words, they did very little to develop new types of aircraft for carriers) than it did inherent limitations in carrier aircraft itself.
The Royal Navy for a long time managed to convince itself that the main strength of its fleets were the battleships, and that the carriers main job was to scout for them. Since their major opponents-the German and Italian fleets-didn't have any carriers at all it took them a long time to wake up to the full potential of the carrier. Even when they did they were forced to first modify Spitfires to act as carrier fighters-not ideal purely because the Spitfires long nose made landing tricky-and later to buy American carrier aircraft.
The US Navy was in a better position, while it seems they still tended to follow the Royal Navy's view on Carriers to some degree they did have far better aircraft from the start. However, they seem to have badly underestimated quite how good Japanese carrier basied aircraft were-it should be recalled that in 1941 the Zero was better than all the fighters the USA had, ground or carrier baised.

quote:

It was a golden bb, against a ship that was already damaged after a battle with another battleship and battlecruiser (which did far more overall damage). Every other hit the swordfish made against the Bismarck was ineffective (only one crew member was lost).

I recalled that the Prince of Wales managed to hit the Bismark at least once before all her guns malfunctioned. I couldn't recall exactly what the damage was off the top of my head, and basic lazyness prevented me from diving through a pile of books to find out. Thankfully Wilki has an entry for the battle which matches what I remember reading;

quote:

Prince of Wales struck her target first. She would ultimately hit Bismarck three times. One shot struck the commander's boat and put the seaplane catapult amidships out of action. The second shell passed through the bow from one side to another. The third struck the hull underwater. These last two caused minor damage and medium flooding. More importantly, the damage to the bow cut access to the forward fuel tanks' 1,000 tons of fuel oil. It also caused Bismarck to trail a visible oil slick and reduced her speed a little.

Put in English the Bismarks AA batteries were still intact when she came under air attack. The inability of the Swordfish bi-planes to do more damage to the Bismark had more to do with British Torpedos being infamous for not working. In fact the aircraft that damaged the Bismark had originaly armed with magnetic torpedos, but when they attacked HMS Sheffield (mistaking her for the Bismark) the torpedos either detonated as they hit the sea or failed to go off at all. Apart from this being a good thing for the Sheffield, it also meant that when the Swordfish returned to the Royal Oak they were re-armed with contact torpedos.
We should be less scathing about the damage that was done to the Bismark by the planes, and more impressed that a handful of 1920's designed bi-planes could hit the ship with the most basic torpedo the Royal Navy had in failing light, choppy seas and while under heavy fire.

One last point about the Bismark; The Bismark was attacked by every Battleship the Royal Navy could spare from the homefleet for several hours. While she was turned into a wreck the ship wasn't sunk by any of the 15 inch shells that hit her. She was sunk by a torpedo fired from a destroyer.

The implications of this, and other actions involving Battleships in WW2, show clearly that Battleships (As all ships are) could be sunk by aircraft who'd total cost was a fraction of even the smallest Battleship. Even against other Battleships they proved not to be that effective-assuming that you could get close enough to engage your opponent, which inless both ships are willing to fight was unlikely.

While Carriers are large and expensive they are more cost effective. They can cover a much larger area of sea, attack anything within that area without any real risk of the target sailing off before you get into range, intercept hostile aircraft long before they get into attack range and detect subs long before they get into range. Yes, you can argue that Carriers can be sunk by subs and you'd be quite correct. But so can Battleships, and Battleships can't detect subs from a hundred miles away making Subs less of a threat to a carrier than to a Battleship.
The only area where Battleships are far more effective than any other type of ship is in close shore bombardment. However, once troops get deeper inland Carrier aircraft once again win hands down as they can continue to provide close airsupport several hundred miles inland.

I think one point to remember about early WW2 BB's (especially when using the Bismark as an example), is that they did not put a premium on AA ability, as reflected by the number and type of AA guns (or lack of them). Aircraft were not considered a primary threat at the time. Compare that to a 1943/44 era BB (North Carolina class and beyond), that literally bristled with AA guns. Notice how those ships took far fewer hits, even with more intense air attacks (intesity of air war in the Atlantic pales to that in the Pacific).

OK, Rommie, I finally have a few minutes. Among the several faulty conclusions you draw is that I don't know the details of previous battles. FYI; I'm not sure what you were doing in the 50's but I had a childhood obsession with battleships like a lot of young guys. I sat in front of our new TV and watched every episode of Victory AT SEA as a first run program. I went to the theaters and saw the Court Martial of Billy Mitchell, Pursuit of the Graff Spee, Sink the Bismarck, In Harm's Way, and Tora, Tora , Tora as first run movies and again and again. I read every book in our library about battleships and naval warfare including Mahan. I built models of every warship that became available from the Monitor and the Merrimac to the Iowa as well as the USS United States and The NS Savannah. I have watched every documentary film and TV simulation on the History Channel to this day from Hampton Roads to Manila Bay to Santiago to Jutland to The River Plate to Savo Island to Okinawa . More to the point, I watched and read these arguments in real time in congressional hearings, TV, magazines, and newspapers back in the 50's and early 60's when the armed forces were struggling for budget supremacy in the new era of jet b0mbers, nucl@ar weapons and at0mic submarines ( I wish Hyman Rickover was still around to discuss this with you) and then when the issue was rehashed during Nam when the BBs were recommissioned and again when the Reaganauts wanted to engage in a new wave of saber rattling. After spending 100's of millions of bucks refitting them, they load them out and send them to sea with their magazines full of shells and powder bags that had been deteriorating in warehouses since before and during WWII-What could POSSIBLY go wrong?
What a waste of a lot of money and 47 lives. I was forced to study the Washington Naval Treaty until my hair hurt in an International Politics course in college as an early example of the efforts in arms control.
Based on this background and the inconvenient fact that I knew the fate of Musashi and the strength of the naval forces of the 5th fleet waiting for Yamato off Okinawa several decades before last Thursday, I'm confident that I have at least as much historic knowledge of the issues regarding BBs as you do. The apparent difference is that I came to the realization that most other people seem to have that BBs are yesterday's news and gradually got over my childhood obsession and moved on to other issues. Don't confuse not being interested in beating every square inch of a horse that died more than two generations ago as not knowing the facts.

Not just battleships but capital ships in general. Asside from the Battleship being rendered obsolete, the large carrier also proved it's weakness. If you can't afford to lose it, you can't afford to use it. During tha battle of Guadalcanal, Admiral Bull Halsey withdrew his carriers and sent a message to the Marines "You are authorised to surrender". Quite a departure from John Paul Jones and "I have not yet begun to fight!"
Every landing from that point on was covered not by the large Carriers but by the smaller escort carriers. CVE was supposed to mean "Carrier, Escort" But Sailors who served on them claimed it really sttod for "Conbustable, vulnerable, expendable". Since these baby flat tops were expendable, they remained on station and took losses which the "Real carriers" would never have done and because of it, Americans prevailed. Leyte Gulf was another example. A surface force of Battleships, cruisers, and destroyers were no match for TAFFY 3. In spite of the fact that TAFFY 3 was not equipped to operate against such assets. All that needed to be done to turn Leyte into a slaughter of the Japanese surface force instead of a heroic stand against overwhelming odds would have been to load some armor piercing bombs into the magazines of the Escort Carriers. With costs skyrocketing, traditional navalism is becomming obsolete. Even the Super Carrier will go the way of the battleship. Most likely the weapon which will lead to the demise of the carrier will be the budget. As far as the Kirov is concerned, 2 Mk-48 torpedos and it is done....Finished. The Kirov is nothing more than a status symbol. Dispersing Naval air power over smaller and more expendable carrier assets has for the longest time been offered as an alternative to the pricey and "Can't afford to lose it" Super carrier. Cost might just force such a change.

The submarine is fast becomming the new capital ship. As the navy's mission has officially shifted to fighting on the sea to fighting "From the sea" Even the carrier's mission has changed. The submarine force is now the official sea control asset. The Carrier is fast becomming an auxiliary ship which only ventures out after sea control has been established. The Iowa Class Battleships served well. They were not worth building after WW2 (Even during that war, production stopped because they were outclassed) but since we had them, it was only right to use them up. They have no been used up. Their service life has been expended. In order to continue using them they would have to go through a SLEP (Service life extension program). The cost of such a program coupled with their high operating cost makes them impractical. The new destroyers can carry more cruise missiles and do so at lower cost. The ABL's for the cruise missiles are no longer supported. VLS is the way we launch cruise missiles now so the battleships would not be able to carry them. It is esier and cheaper to have a B-52 loaded with JDAM's circling overhead (Which can drop even more potent ordinance than the 16" projectile" than it would be to park a Battleship. And a B-52 can do so more than 20 miles inland. An ASROC booster with a JDAM launched from a VLS has the same potency as any 16" gun. Once gain, more bang for the buck.
We used the Iowa's up and thier time has come and gone. Time to move on and do the job without breaking the bank.

Large Carriers will remain in service.

I don't make this statement based on survivability, but on what would be called 'power-projection'. Power-projection is about two things, the first is being seen to have large powerful ships/forces in an effort to convince other nations that your forces are too strong to attack. The second part is the ability to quickly bring a military force into range of a hostile nation or situation.

Large carriers are perfect for power-projection. They are large powerful ships-more so since they always travel as part of a fleet-that show the extent of US Military power around the world, and they can do so on someone's doorstep.
They can support small scale operations, such as hostage rescue, without having to call on additional forces, and the air wings of most US Carriers are both larger in number and consist of more advanced aircraft than most air forces.

Battleships in comparison are pitiful power-projectors. A Carrier can provide close fire support to Marines on shore from several hundred miles way, while a Battleship has get much, much closer, Carriers can take out the airfields of opposing air forces, Battleships can't. The argument that Carriers would, in an all out war, be sunk before the Battleships ignores that Carriers would be the primary targets because they are the much bigger threat.

Subs don't enter into the discussion at all. Subs never have, and never can be used as power-projectors. Their job is to remain a hidden threat.

A good indication that the Carrier is here to stay for the foreseeable future comes from the Royal Navy. The RN scrapped its last large carrier in the 1970's in favour of the much smaller Invincible Class aircraft carriers carrying a squadron of Sea-Harriers. Today the RN has contracted two large carriers to be built to replace the Invincible class ships. These large carriers will use F-22's.

Cyber, I generally agree that the big carriers can continue to operate for a while and do the missions you suggest as long as long range missile technology doesn't become widespread through second and third world countries. I had heard about the new British carriers, but I thought they were intended to use the naval version of the F-35 or JSF or a navalized version of the Eurofighter. I didn't know there was to be a carrier based F-22. I do like the idea of the sub launched cruise missiles in large volumes though. The converted Ohio class boats with the ability to launch 154 cruise missiles out of nowhere with no warning could certainly make an impression on a foe that would oppose our landing. Subs haven't had the capacity of bombarding land targets quite like these will.

Not so! While larger than the Invincable, they are still much smaller than our own Nimitz class and will have a Ski Jump Ramp instead of catapults. They will be using the VSTOL version of the F-35, not the F-22. The F-22 is strictly a land based fighter which is far too expensive for even the USAF to afford in any number and there is no Naval version in the works.

bernie-you are correct, I was getting the F-22 and the F-35 mixed up. There was some development of the F-22 for Carriers to replace the F-14, but this project was stopped a few years back. Probably explains my confusion.

Of course the new Carriers for the RN are going to be smaller than the Nimitz class ships. The RN couldn't afford to operate ships of that size, plus most, if not all, British ports couldn't take ships of the Nimitz class's size even if the RN could afford them. My point was that the RN is building large Carriers-larger than the old Invincible class-because small carriers are of less use.

large battle ships being used for war fighting are over. They are too expensive, too vulnerable, and too outdated to be used again. No coutry has mass-produced battle ships since ww2
There only use now is collecting rust in the boneyard, museums or rarely sold out to foreign countries and serve transport duties.

Their greatest contribution to fighting a modern war would being able to put bullets in your gun and food in your belly.

Considering that some guy sitting in a executive chair pushes a big red button which sends out a missle and destroys that target. There isn't going to be a need for such massive ships ever again.

quote:

Originally posted by bernie109:
By the end of 1943, all Battleship constructions was suspended because they were no longer considered worth the cost. The USS Kentucky was supposes to be an Iowa class on steroids with a fourth 16" turret. It was re ordered as another Iowa class in order to support carriers but even then, it was declared surplus. It was made watertight and launched in order to make room for Carrier construction. The uncompleted hulk was later scrapped. As of now, all Battleships have been stricken from the nval register meanining there are no Battleship available for re activation. This makes any arguement moot.

Actually both the USS Illinois BB-65, and the Kentucky BB-66 where Iowa Class Battleships. The Illinois was only 25% complete when canceled on 9/12/45. Kentucky, which was being built at Norfolk, was closer to 72% when it was suspended on 2/7/47. Next several years they tired to decide what to do with it, one thought was to convert it into a some type of missile ship. However with the Washington hitting the Eaton in 1956, they took the bow off the Kentucky, and grafted it on the Washington. It then was sold for scrap. Interesting note, the power pants went into the Sacramento and Camden (AOE 1-2) and they both where able to about 30 knots.

What you where thinking where the Montana Class Battleships. They would have had the 12 16"/50's, with 20 5"/58 cal. They all where canceled on 7/21/43.

KM, It was the Wisconsin that had the "nose" job, not the Washington. If you check the WIKI article, there's a picture of the damage.