thedab

Battleships did did nothing in ww2

157 posts in this topic

On 1/11/2017 at 7:37 PM, thedab said:

except for being target practice,for planes and submarines and doing a bit of shore bombardment.

 

they were complete waste of time and resources.

 

most of the work was done by Destroyers and smaller vessels.

 

It's time to face up to facts folks,Battleships were a waste of time in ww2.

You clearly have no knowledge of history if you think that way..

0

Share this post


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

You clearly have no knowledge of history if you think that way..

 

ok tell me what can a battleship can do,what no other ship can?

 

what was the point of a battleship,was it them what won midway or battle of the Atlantic.

0

Share this post


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

 

ok tell me what can a battleship can do,what no other ship can?

 

what was the point of a battleship,was it them what won midway or battle of the Atlantic.

It was battleships that decided the battle of Leyte gulf; easily the biggest naval battle of the second world war (and possibly in all history).

 

Just saying...

1

Share this post


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

 

ok tell me what can a battleship can do,what no other ship can?

 

what was the point of a battleship,was it them what won midway or battle of the Atlantic.

Battleships have always been about having the armor to take hits while the firepower to destroy whatever they came across. Naval supremacy has been proven to be a war winner ever since the age of sail. During World War II colonies and oversea territories were vital to the war effort for a number of different nations, in order to secure the routes to transport these materials a navy was needed to guard them from opposing enemies. And in some cases such as Britain and Japan, naval supremacy in the region was the strongest possible defense at the time. 

 

Germany was starved out thanks to the British blockade during World War 1 and the strength of the Royal Navy was the main reason. Battleships were essentially the apex predator for surface vessels at the time where they essentially outclassed all other surface vessels in most areas apart from speed, keeping this in mind it would only be natural to have as many of these ships as possible to ensure that when the time comes for a major naval engagement that the side with the better and more battleships would win, CA's, CL's, and DD's roles during such engagements were supportive in partnership with the battleships. Pitting a fleet of Battleships with support vessels against a larger enemy cruiser fleet would have most definitely resulted in the victory of the battleships, cruisers simply don't have the armor or firepower to go toe to toe with Battleships making the Battleships combined strength of firepower and armor irreplaceable to any other surface vessel.

 

During Midway as we all know, the Aircraft Carrier somewhat kicked the Battleship from the top of the food chain, with air supremacy giving outstanding results throughout the entire war. While it's true that Carriers were the kings during Midway you could also see the Battleships as queens with their job to protect the carriers, what would happen if an enemy Battleship, Cruiser formation discovered the locations of your carriers while it's aircraft is elsewhere? Well then the carrier isn't properly able to protect itself to Cruisers and Battleships making them vulnerable without the support of friendly Battleships and Cruisers, then it becomes the Defending Battleship/Cruisers against the attacking Battleship/Cruisers with the side with more firepower (battleships) having a better chance to win the engagement. While a Battleship has little chance against the aircraft of an enemy Carrier a Carrier has little chance against the guns of a battleship, causing carriers to operate in correspondence with other surface vessels for protection. So really while Carriers had their advantages they could only really operate with safety with a support of other surface vessels. 

 

As others said before talking about how Battleships also provided shore bombardment which was a great benefit to the powers participating in the Pacific Theater, battleships did many things during ww2 and were still essential to any fleet at the time.

3

Share this post


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

 

ok tell me what can a battleship can do,what no other ship can?

 

what was the point of a battleship,was it them what won midway or battle of the Atlantic.

Yeah, it was battleships that basically won the Atlantic. 

 

Without them, Britain would have basically no need to keep a contingent fleet for any breakouts by German battleships. 

They could have put more ships and resources into convoy protection and sub hunting, which would have greatly impacted their effectiveness, or committed more ships to the Med, and beaten the Italian fleet. 

Just the presence of the German battleships forced the British to hold ships back. 

 

Battleships were vital in Mers el Kebir in sinking the French fleet. No other ship would have been able to even touch those ships in the port, let alone sink them like they did. 

 

The Italian Battleships were formidable, and caused the British a lot of pain in the Mediterranean. The Italian battleships were so good they they very nearly forced the British out of the the Med, despite their lack of carriers. 

2

Share this post


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

Yeah, it was battleships that basically won the Atlantic. 

 

Without them, Britain would have basically no need to keep a contingent fleet for any breakouts by German battleships. 

They could have put more ships and resources into convoy protection and sub hunting, which would have greatly impacted their effectiveness, or committed more ships to the Med, and beaten the Italian fleet. 

Just the presence of the German battleships forced the British to hold ships back. 

 

Battleships were vital in Mers el Kebir in sinking the French fleet. No other ship would have been able to even touch those ships in the port, let alone sink them like they did. 

 

The Italian Battleships were formidable, and caused the British a lot of pain in the Mediterranean. The Italian battleships were so good they they very nearly forced the British out of the the Med, despite their lack of carriers. 

 

1/aircraft in fact the British starter to decommission some of their Battleships in 43,moveing some of their guns on to monitors.

2/aircraft

3/aircraft

4/ they did well at Taranto which was avenged by the raid on Alexndria, and no, frogmen are not Battleships,it was Italian aircraft,subs,and destroyers and Torpedo boats,which did all work.

7 hours ago, Been_Benuane said:

It was battleships that decided the battle of Leyte gulf; easily the biggest naval battle of the second world war (and possibly in all history).

 

Just saying...

no they did not,it was aircraft and destroyers

Edited by thedab
1

Share this post


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

 

1/aircraft in fact the British starter to decommission some of their Battleships in 43,moveing some of their guns on to monitors.

2/aircraft

3/aircraft

4/ they did well at Taranto which was avenged by the raid on Alexndria, and no, frogmen are not Battleships,it was Italian aircraft,subs,and destroyers and Torpedo boats,which did all work.

no they did not,it was aircraft and destroyers

I'd still like to hear your point towards the german pocket battleships that did convoy raiding.

1

Share this post


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

I'd still like to hear your point towards the german pocket battleships that did convoy raiding.

Propaganda komrade)))))

 

also his points are also again completely general, I could make an argument for aircraft tipping the scales in EVERY battle of WWII

Edited by the_suztown
1

Share this post


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

Propaganda komrade)))))

 

also his points are also again completely general, I could make an argument for aircraft tipping the scales in EVERY battle of WWII

 

In fact, isn't it the case that boats were used primarily at night primarily because of aircraft? ...and secondarily because of ships :P

0

Share this post


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

 

ok tell me what can a battleship can do,what no other ship can?

 

what was the point of a battleship,was it them what won midway or battle of the Atlantic.

Did you not read what other forum users have to say about your dull argument?

 

 

On 1/11/2017 at 8:33 PM, AmirHamzah said:

Battleship serve as the command center for the fleet since its the strongest ship compared to destroyer & cruisers. Nobody will place the Chief Admiral of the fleet on the PT boat and expecting him to be safe and be able to do his job of coordinating the fleet.

 

On 1/11/2017 at 9:45 PM, sabaton_ said:

What am I reading???

Of course they did a lot:

 

German battleships Gneisenau and Scharnhorst sunk the birtish carrier HMS Glorious

The Bismarck sunk the HMS Hood

HMS King George V and HMS Rodney sunk the Bismarck

HMS Duke of York sunk the Scharnhorst

Japanese battleships Yamashiro and Fuso were sunk during the battle of Surigao Strait by 6 american battleships. Plus they damaged the heavy cruiser Mogami, so it was scuttled.

 

Those are the ones I can remember.

Plus they shot down tons of planes, damaged many ships during the large battles in the Pacific, bombed the islands to cover landings, provided cover for other ships, american ones bombed the shores of Japan at the end of the war, etc.

 

On 1/13/2017 at 3:36 AM, Fallenkezef said:

WW2 was the Battleship's swansong and they did good service in all the major seafaring nations.

 

On 1/13/2017 at 0:37 PM, 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

 

8 hours ago, Eden_Earhart said:

Yeah, it was battleships that basically won the Atlantic. 

 

Without them, Britain would have basically no need to keep a contingent fleet for any breakouts by German battleships. 

They could have put more ships and resources into convoy protection and sub hunting, which would have greatly impacted their effectiveness, or committed more ships to the Med, and beaten the Italian fleet. 

Just the presence of the German battleships forced the British to hold ships back. 

 

Battleships were vital in Mers el Kebir in sinking the French fleet. No other ship would have been able to even touch those ships in the port, let alone sink them like they did. 

 

The Italian Battleships were formidable, and caused the British a lot of pain in the Mediterranean. The Italian battleships were so good they they very nearly forced the British out of the the Med, despite their lack of carriers. 

 

 If you are just going to put your hands on your ears ignoring what is true then whats the point of me trying to explain to you the roles of battleships?

 

P.S.

 

And just because the Yamato died from the waves of US bombers (which took so many to destroy) does not mean a battleship was ever bad or waste of resources.

Edited by KillstreakGaming
1

Share this post


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

 

1/aircraft in fact the British starter to decommission some of their Battleships in 43,moveing some of their guns on to monitors.

2/aircraft

3/aircraft

4/ they did well at Taranto which was avenged by the raid on Alexndria, and no, frogmen are not Battleships,it was Italian aircraft,subs,and destroyers and Torpedo boats,which did all work.

1. Care to point out which battleship has its guns put onto which monitor? As far as I can tell, the only crossover I can see, is the 15" guns from a monitor possibly being put onto HMS Vanguard. The exact opposite of your claim. 

2. Good luck using aircraft to locate a breakout battleship. You'd have to use dozens of aircraft just to scan the sea for it, and then when you eventually spot it, you'd have to keep relocating it again everytime you need to make another attack on it, since you can only keep an aircraft with it for so long until it needs to refuel. 

It's much easier to send out a fleet of ships that can shadow it indefinitely and engage at any time, and with much more fire power. The Bismarck Vs Tirpitz is a great example of this. Bismarck broke out and was hunted down and sunk only a few days later. Meanwhile, the Tirpitz was attacked for 5 years over 22 different air operations before she was finally sunk. And these attacks were against a stationary ship in calm water. A ship sailing in the rough waters of the North Atlantic would have been much harder to deal with using just air power. 

3. Good luck getting enough planes out there to effectively sink all the battleships. When you're just firing at stationary targets, it's much easier to use a battleship, because you can keep up a sustained fire. The main advantage of aircraft is that you can take the enemy by surprise, you risk less than you would in a ship-on-ship engagement, and you can get torpedo hits, which are going to do a lot of damage. In Mer el Kebir, the battleships had heavy torpedo defences, were well aware that the British were going to attack because of their ultimatum, and the British ships engaged from long range, where it's easier to hit the stationary targets in port, than it would be for the French to return the long range fire on the moving British fleet. 

Air power was in fact present during the attack, but had little impact compared to the guns of the battleships. So I find it very hard to believe that aircraft alone could have carried out the attack. 

4. The only reason the Italian battleships did as much as they did, was due to fuel shortages, inconsistent gunnery, and not wanting to risk their fleet in engagements against the superior British fleet. Had there been more fuel available, several engagements at Crete and Spartivento could have gone very differently if the Italian fleet had been able to sail out with a fleet of 3 or even 4 battleships. 

The failing of Italian logistics is not a failing of the battleship design. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Eden_Earhart said:

1. Care to point out which battleship has its guns put onto which monitor? As far as I can tell, the only crossover I can see, is the 15" guns from a monitor possibly being put onto HMS Vanguard. The exact opposite of your claim. 

2. Good luck using aircraft to locate a breakout battleship. You'd have to use dozens of aircraft just to scan the sea for it, and then when you eventually spot it, you'd have to keep relocating it again everytime you need to make another attack on it, since you can only keep an aircraft with it for so long until it needs to refuel. 

It's much easier to send out a fleet of ships that can shadow it indefinitely and engage at any time, and with much more fire power. The Bismarck Vs Tirpitz is a great example of this. Bismarck broke out and was hunted down and sunk only a few days later. Meanwhile, the Tirpitz was attacked for 5 years over 22 different air operations before she was finally sunk. And these attacks were against a stationary ship in calm water. A ship sailing in the rough waters of the North Atlantic would have been much harder to deal with using just air power. 

3. Good luck getting enough planes out there to effectively sink all the battleships. When you're just firing at stationary targets, it's much easier to use a battleship, because you can keep up a sustained fire. The main advantage of aircraft is that you can take the enemy by surprise, you risk less than you would in a ship-on-ship engagement, and you can get torpedo hits, which are going to do a lot of damage. In Mer el Kebir, the battleships had heavy torpedo defences, were well aware that the British were going to attack because of their ultimatum, and the British ships engaged from long range, where it's easier to hit the stationary targets in port, than it would be for the French to return the long range fire on the moving British fleet. 

Air power was in fact present during the attack, but had little impact compared to the guns of the battleships. So I find it very hard to believe that aircraft alone could have carried out the attack. 

4. The only reason the Italian battleships did as much as they did, was due to fuel shortages, inconsistent gunnery, and not wanting to risk their fleet in engagements against the superior British fleet. Had there been more fuel available, several engagements at Crete and Spartivento could have gone very differently if the Italian fleet had been able to sail out with a fleet of 3 or even 4 battleships. 

The failing of Italian logistics is not a failing of the battleship design. 

1/by the end of 44 half of the British Battleship fleet was taken out of the line,Briton only had 7 battleships left by the end of the war,but had about 50 carriers

 

2/the Bismarck was crippled by a swordfish in bad weather and at night(i didn't know about the bad weather or the night bit untill I looked it up)

 

3/see Taranto & Pearl Harbor

 

4/No it was failing of Italy per-war naval planning,or more to the piont,failing of the old men of Regia Marina.

0

Share this post


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

1/by the end of 44 half of the British Battleship fleet was taken out of the line,Briton only had 7 battleships left by the end of the war,but had about 50 carriers

 

2/the Bismarck was crippled by a swordfish in bad weather and at night(i didn't know about the bad weather or the night bit untill I looked it up)

 

3/see Taranto & Pearl Harbor

 

4/No it was failing of Italy per-war naval planning,or more to the piont,failing of the old men of Regia Marina.

And guess why that happened?

 

It was either poor planning that caused the battleships to sink, the underestimation of thier enemy, or their enemy had better tactics.

 

Just because a battleship was destroyed does not mean it is terrible, it's like saying you dropped your phone and that phone is horible because of it.

Edited by KillstreakGaming
2

Share this post


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

1/by the end of 44 half of the British Battleship fleet was taken out of the line,Briton only had 7 battleships left by the end of the war,but had about 50 carriers

 

2/the Bismarck was crippled by a swordfish in bad weather and at night(i didn't know about the bad weather or the night bit untill I looked it up)

 

3/see Taranto & Pearl Harbor

 

4/No it was failing of Italy per-war naval planning,or more to the piont,failing of the old men of Regia Marina.

 

 

You have this way of avoiding defending your points by arguing the minutiae of otherwise pretty solid points. You don't get to point out all the failings of battleships and then simply ignore the fact that they are the backbone of the carrier task force. 

 

Also, whenever you extoll the virtues of aircraft (which I agree with mostly) you seem to forget what those aircraft are targeting. If ships are so useless because they can be sunk by aircraft, why did anybody build ships besides aircraft carriers? It's because a fleet is useless without its many parts, all working together. You act like it wasn't a big deal to successfully sink a battleship, why is it that the examples of aircraft sinking battleships are so prolific that we can name pretty much all of them? That's because what they did was hard, and you acting like battleships are some great anachronism like the Germans using horses is just ignorant.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21.1.2017 at 6:18 PM, Stahlvormund101 said:

I'd still like to hear your point towards the german pocket battleships that did convoy raiding.

Heavy Cruiser... "Pocket Battleship" is nothing more than a british nickname

 

Quote

2/the Bismarck was crippled by a swordfish in bad weather and at night(i didn't know about the bad weather or the night bit untill I looked it up)

yes crippled wiht nothing short of an incredibly lucky hit

 

Quote

Meanwhile, the Tirpitz was attacked for 5 years over 22 different air operations before she was finally sunk.

and that possibly only because the Kriegsmarine didnt tellt he Luftwaffe that they had relocated the Tirpitz... the Lonely Queen of the Norths mere presence forced the allies to keep quite big escorts to their convoys otherwise The Beast would've wrecked Havoc among the convoys with Wolfpack support

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RohmMohc said:

Heavy Cruiser... "Pocket Battleship" is nothing more than a british nickname

Still a very heavy class of ships and the closest comparison I could make to show the worth of large ships.

Also everybody knows what you are talking about when you say "pocket battleships" instead of german heavy cruisers.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, KillstreakGaming said:

Did you not read what other forum users have to say about your dull argument?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 If you are just going to put your hands on your ears ignoring what is true then whats the point of me trying to explain to you the roles of battleships?

 

P.S.

 

And just because the Yamato died from the waves of US bombers (which took so many to destroy) does not mean a battleship was ever bad or waste of resources.

yep it took massive amount of planes to take out battleship, with could be used in other areas.

 

main thing why US BB took big losses at Pearl Harbor was their unprepared state. (except for poor Arizona, exact reason why front ammo magazines exploded is not known with certainty to this day, but its assumed that's black powder for aircraft catapults unwisely stored in proximity to the forward main magazines).

 

still of 4 ships 2 were fully recovered (only Oklahoma and Arizona were completely destroyed), Oklahoma could be saved if not unprepared state (West Virginia survived similar amount of hits thx to fast response of damage control team), while Arizona is bit unknown.

 

and for all that was entire power of Japan Carrier group, giving only 4 ships lost in total due to high focus on Battleships.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

main thing why US BB took big losses at Pearl Harbor was their unprepared state. (except for poor Arizona, exact reason why front ammo magazines exploded is not known with certainty to this day, but its assumed that's black powder for aircraft catapults unwisely stored in proximity to the forward main magazines).

oh man... nearly as bad as "Stuff every corner with Cordite" *Bam* "There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today".... or the (possible) open door on the Hood...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"aircraft made battleships useless, look at Pearl Harbor"
yeah...because at pearl harbor everyone was ready for an air attack, and everyone was on board the ships with AA guns ready /sarcasm

Edited by Hunter12396
1

Share this post


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

oh man... nearly as bad as "Stuff every corner with Cordite" *Bam* "There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today".... or the (possible) open door on the Hood...

at last someone who did that didn't expected that there will be 500kg bombs flying above his head in next days/hours/minutes.

1 hour ago, Hunter12396 said:

"aircraft made battleships useless, look at Pearl Harbor"
yeah...because at pearl harbor everyone was ready for an air attack, and everyone was on board the ships with AA guns ready /sarcasm

considering that most of damaged ships were back intro action within a year (only BB were 3 years, but what you expect from 9 torpedo hits (not many ships survived got hit by more))

unrecoverable loses were primary people, planes, 2 WW1 BB (Oklahoma and Arizona), 1 training WW1 BB Utah, and 1 auxiliary ship.

at Midway Japan suffered much higher losses.

1

Share this post


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

1/by the end of 44 half of the British Battleship fleet was taken out of the line,Briton only had 7 battleships left by the end of the war,but had about 50 carriers

 

2/the Bismarck was crippled by a swordfish in bad weather and at night(i didn't know about the bad weather or the night bit untill I looked it up)

 

3/see Taranto & Pearl Harbor

 

4/No it was failing of Italy per-war naval planning,or more to the piont,failing of the old men of Regia Marina.

1. Because battleships are the largest and most powerful ships in a fleet generally, and so generally take the most damage. Unlike carriers which generally can make an attack over 100km away from their target and aren't usually in harms way unless something goes very wrong. 

And America wasn't giving Britain battleships, but they were giving them carriers. 

A light or escort carrier is easier to build than a battleship, because they have much less displacement. 

AND they are more effective for submarine patrols, since that late in the war subs were more of a danger than anything else the Germans had at sea. 

 

2. HMS Prince of Wales crippled the Bismarck, which slowed her down and forced her to leave the Prinz Eugen and sail for France. 

 

3. Both attacks caught the defenders by surprise. 

I dunno how you suppose they surprise the French fleet when they told them the exact time they would start attacking. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Eden_Earhart said:

1. Because battleships are the largest and most powerful ships in a fleet generally, and so generally take the most damage. Unlike carriers which generally can make an attack over 100km away from their target and aren't usually in harms way unless something goes very wrong. 

And America wasn't giving Britain battleships, but they were giving them carriers. 

A light or escort carrier is easier to build than a battleship, because they have much less displacement. 

AND they are more effective for submarine patrols, since that late in the war subs were more of a danger than anything else the Germans had at sea. 

 

2. HMS Prince of Wales crippled the Bismarck, which slowed her down and forced her to leave the Prinz Eugen and sail for France. 

 

3. Both attacks caught the defenders by surprise. 

I dunno how you suppose they surprise the French fleet when they told them the exact time they would start attacking. 

7 British Battleships were taken out by jan 45 3 from the The Queen Elizabeth class and 4 from the Revenge class.

 

the Prince of Wales got sunk by Japanese aircraft

 

British Battleships that got sunk or crippled at their mooring Royal Oak Scapa Flow,sunk by U-47 in 39,Valiant and Queen Elizbeth,crippled by Italian Frogmen Alexandria 41.

 

of 270 Royal Navy ships lost in ww2 the most I can find so far lost to gunfire is 9.

the RN also lost 1035 smaller units.

0

Share this post


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

of 270 Royal Navy ships lost in ww2 the most I can find so far lost to gunfire is 9.

the RN also lost 1035 smaller units.

1 show great large German surface Navy... (sarcazm)

 

Most of RN enemies at Atlantic weren't surface ships with lot of gun power, German surface ships sunk some RN ships, but there weren't a lot of them compared to submarines and land based aircrafts..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-01-21 at 5:18 AM, Eden_Earhart said:

Yeah, it was battleships that basically won the Atlantic. 

 

Without them, Britain would have basically no need to keep a contingent fleet for any breakouts by German battleships. 

They could have put more ships and resources into convoy protection and sub hunting, which would have greatly impacted their effectiveness, or committed more ships to the Med, and beaten the Italian fleet. 

Just the presence of the German battleships forced the British to hold ships back. 

 

Battleships were vital in Mers el Kebir in sinking the French fleet. No other ship would have been able to even touch those ships in the port, let alone sink them like they did. 

 

The Italian Battleships were formidable, and caused the British a lot of pain in the Mediterranean. The Italian battleships were so good they they very nearly forced the British out of the the Med, despite their lack of carriers. 

Umm... I wholeheartedly agree that Battleships played a pivotal role in the War, but the Battle of the Atlantic was not won by them. It wasn't the battleships that protected the thousands of convoys traveling the Mid-Atlantic gap. Nor was it battleships that kept the german fleet out of the Atlantic.  That role is solely thanks to the efforts of Escort Carriers, Corvettes and Frigates. It was those small ships that did the dirty work, escorting convoys and sinking U-boats. A grand total of 0 of the more than 800 subs lost in the Atlantic were sunk by Battleships

 

Don't kid yourself, Battleships had a pivotal role in the pacific and even the med, but not the Atlantic, there they had very little useful purpose.

Edited by janderson01
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, arczer25 said:

1 show great large German surface Navy... (sarcazm)

 

Most of RN enemies at Atlantic weren't surface ships with lot of gun power, German surface ships sunk some RN ships, but there weren't a lot of them compared to submarines and land based aircrafts..

have you of heard Italy or Japan,they had a Navy too

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.