thedab

Battleships did did nothing in ww2

207 posts in this topic

13 hours ago, bellezza03 said:

tell that to the marines that had to assault beaches and bunkers in Okinawa and Iwo Jima. Not even telling about Guadalcanal where the at the end the 2 US battleship decided who dominated guadalcanl waters. And if Japan didn't lost all his carriers at Midway in only one assault we would have seen a battle the the Yutland would have been nothing by comparison. Also battleships where really good in the fleet in being concept which was really well adopted by the Italian Battleships. Yes the BBs where no more the gods, but with air cover, a battleship was the most dangerous treath you could face

 

I don't think so,they are only dangerous when you have no planes or subs or torpedo boats.

the only good thing battleships did in ww2 was shore bombardment.

 

and it's funny that you mention the Regia Marina,as their small ships and boats were way more successful,than their Battleships.

if they spent that money that they used on Battleships,but instead on destroyers,subs,and maybe a carrier or two,then the Mediterranean would have become Mare Nostrum.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A "fleet in being" -  by simply existing the Italian BB's forced the British to maintain a fleet there too.  Small craft were never going to "rule" the med - they certainly had successes, but they also have limits.

 

Carriers were a liability in the med - almost everywhere was in range of land based aircraft.  

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Josephs_Piano said:

A "fleet in being" -  by simply existing the Italian BB's forced the British to maintain a fleet there too.  Small craft were never going to "rule" the med - they certainly had successes, but they also have limits.

 

Carriers were a liability in the med - almost everywhere was in range of land based aircraft.  

 

Not to mention U-Boats, we lost Arc Royal in the med that way.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Battleships did did nothing in ww2"

 

Neither did bullets. It took ~10,000 fired per enemy killed.

 

 

9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hohum33 said:

"Battleships did did nothing in ww2"

 

Neither did bullets. It took ~10,000 fired per enemy killed.

 

 

 

 

This explains quite a bit about bullets.

In short:

Bullets are used to not only kill or injure, but also to suppress the enemy, and potentially force them to retreat.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/01/2017 at 9:13 PM, Kazumi_ said:

 

This explains quite a bit about bullets.

In short:

Bullets are used to not only kill or injure, but also to suppress the enemy, and potentially force them to retreat.

 

I was parodying.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2017 at 3:32 PM, Mai_Waffentrager said:

Lest we forget the amount of provision fire Battleships did for ground troops? 

Absolutely. They served as far more effective mobile artillery batteries than shorter ranged cruisers. Not to mention they had their own screens that small fast attack craft and naval air units had to deal with.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the point of this post to diminish the role battleships played in the second world war? I seem to have forgotten all the shore bombardment PT boat squads, so famous for providing marines with fire support. What about all the command PT boats that Admirals sailed on in the middle of the ocean? Or even those AA platform PT boats that protected carriers from fanatical Japanese pilots bent on putting their planes through American flight decks?

 

This is a completely indefensible point, even just using the example of American battleships.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey I think that military police did nothing in the second world war (sarcasm if you don't detect it)....

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Been_Benuane said:

Hey I think that military police did nothing in the second world war (sarcasm if you don't detect it)....

Did anyone do anything in WWII? that is the real question here

8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, the_suztown said:

Did anyone do anything in WWII? that is the real question here

Probably not. 

My sources tell me PT boats were really the battleships of WW2

Oh wait... 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, the_suztown said:

Did anyone do anything in WWII? that is the real question here

 

It was all faked, like the Moon landings, in order to give something for Hollywood to make films about.

 

Anyone who says otherwise is in on it.

7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wraps on the thread. We have determined that all combat of WW2 was nothing by OP's standards. Time for a lock.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, the_suztown said:

Did anyone do anything in WWII? that is the real question here

Alright, let's all admit it.

WWII was fought and won by the Swiss Navy.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LordAskelon said:

Alright, let's all admit it.

WWII was fought and won by the Swiss Navy.

Youll need 2 sources to prove that :^) 

 

3 hours ago, Iprinz said:

Wraps on the thread. We have determined that all combat of WW2 was nothing by OP's standards. Time for a lock.

I do think its time for either a lock or a move to off topic.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my point is a Battleship need a fleet to live,but a fleet don't need a battleship,and a battleship without a fleet,won't live long

 

and the only thing that anyone come up with,that was good for,is shore bombardment.

 

oh a lot of you are getting Destroyers mix up with battleships.

Edited by thedab
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, thedab said:

my point is a Battleship need a fleet to live,but a fleet don't need a battleship,and a battleship without a fleet,won't live long.

"Bombers need fighters to live but fighters dont need bombers to survive"

 

sound familier? ps all ships need a fleet to live you dipstick, any lone ship wont last long.

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, the_suztown said:

"Bombers need fighters to live but fighters dont need bombers to survive"

 

sound familier? ps all ships need a fleet to live you dipstick, any lone ship wont last long.

It's pretty much the same when the US tried to fly their B-17 over Germany without fighters cover and we saw how THAT turned out.

Does that means bombers didn' du nuthing in WW2? Certainly not.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Stahlvormund101 said:

It's pretty much the same when the US tried to fly their B-17 over Germany without fighters cover and we saw how THAT turned out.

Does that means bombers didn' du nuthing in WW2? Certainly not.

Aye, tbh yo couls apple "x needs Y but y doesnt need x" to almost anything in WW2

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, the_suztown said:

Aye, tbh yo couls apple "x needs Y but y doesnt need x" to almost anything in WW2

 

Like, tanks could work without infantry, but were much more vulnerable that way.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, thedab said:

my point is a Battleship need a fleet to live,but a fleet don't need a battleship,and a battleship without a fleet,won't live long

 

and the only thing that anyone come up with,that was good for,is shore bombardment.

 

oh a lot of you are getting Destroyers mix up with battleships.

 

 

No. Your point was that battleships did nothing during ww2, as is in the title of the post. 

 

That was quickly disproven. Shore bombardment.

 

So you mean your secondary point, which is also easily disproven. Tell me a situation where a destroyer has better AA coverage than a battleship? What do you want next to your carriers, jack of all trades tin cans with tons of firepower for their size, or a 50,000 ton behemoth who's sole purpose is to have the most of every gun in the fleet? There is no logical reason to leave battleships out of your fleet if they are the best AA you have. The Iowa's port side had two destroyers worth of flak cannons, many times that in 40 and 20 mm, all by itself, on a gun platform much less likely to be rolling about. 

 

Even if their sole purpose was escorting carriers, that makes them the second most important vessel in the fleet.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tizianenel said:

So..

 

what DID the boats do?

 

what did ships smaller than battleships do?

Screening, laying down mines, laying down communication cables, aiding in laying down pipes across the english channel for logistical support, keeping hostile ships out of ports, assisting in patroling coastlines, hunting subs, laying down torpedo nets, and lest we forget... Transporting men, supplies and tanks onto shorelines. Or in the case of dunkirk, from the shores to RN vessels in deeper waters.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.