thedab

Battleships did did nothing in ww2

212 posts in this topic

If there were no Battleships protecting the fleets, then it would be asking for trouble... the Battleships were always a weapon of fear, they didnt have to necessarily be used in combat, but just showing up would make the enemy think otherwise... one reason why the US keeps certain retired Battleships on standby in case they are once again needed to convince the enemy to back down

 

On 1/12/2017 at 10:40 AM, slinkywinkyeye said:

That is why they are not in warthunder.

 

This is not the reason why, it has been explained a number of times elsewhere

 

On 1/19/2017 at 4:07 PM, *Amanda_D_215 said:

I heard infantry weren't important in the war too. It's why they're not being included. :facepalm:

 

The reason there is no infantry is because it would raise the current age limit for the game... and the Devs want to make sure the age limit is low as possible so that many as possible can play and have fun

4

Share this post


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

one reason why the US keeps certain retired Battleships on standby in case they are once again needed to convince the enemy to back down

Not really, well not anymore at least. The last 4 Iowa class have all been turned into museums and are open to the public now. 

 

USS Iowa is in LA

USS New Jersey is in Camden 

USS Wisconsin is in Norfolk

USS Missouri is in Pearl Harbor

 

They could probably be reconfigured to fight again if needed but the cost would be to much and to be honest they aren't really needed anymore.

The battleships day has long past. WW2 proved the aircraft carrier was king of the hill.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, *ko102crew said:

Not really, well not anymore at least. The last 4 Iowa class have all been turned into museums and are open to the public now. 

 

USS Iowa is in LA

USS New Jersey is in Camden 

USS Wisconsin is in Norfolk

USS Missouri is in Pearl Harbor

 

They could probably be reconfigured to fight again if needed but the cost would be to much and to be honest they aren't really needed anymore.

The battleships day has long past. WW2 proved the aircraft carrier was king of the hill.

 

 

"Muesum" is the code word for "Kept in a State of Readiness" ^^ and yes, like in the past when they were bought out of retirement, they can be modified pretty quickly for any task that maybe required of them

0

Share this post


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

The reason there is no infantry is because it would raise the current age limit for the game... and the Devs want to make sure the age limit is low as possible so that many as possible can play and have fun

 

Well, his post was clearly sarcasm m8. Would be cool if the rumored bazooka infantry were AI protectorates of the GF spawns.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, *ko102crew said:

Not really, well not anymore at least. The last 4 Iowa class have all been turned into museums and are open to the public now. 

 

USS Iowa is in LA

USS New Jersey is in Camden 

USS Wisconsin is in Norfolk

USS Missouri is in Pearl Harbor

 

They could probably be reconfigured to fight again if needed but the cost would be to much and to be honest they aren't really needed anymore.

The battleships day has long past. WW2 proved the aircraft carrier was king of the hill.

(

Kirov class battlecruisers anyone?

 

its hard to tell how WW2 proved the aircraft carrier superiority (im not saying that they aren't superior) on Pacific only 4 battleships can be considered fully destroyed by Aircraft (more were destroyed other means), and 2 additional destroyed battleships with could be prevented if they were in operational conditions (Arizona and Oklahoma):

 Arizona, aft ammo magazines were touched off by black powder for aircraft catapults unwisely stored in proximity to the forward main magazines, i debut that someone would do that in war conditions.

Oklahoma damage control team didn't reacted in time, compared to USS West Virginia DCT with reacted in time saving ship despite equal amount of torpedo hits (9)

2

Share this post


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

Kirov class battlecruisers anyone?

 

its hard to tell how WW2 proved the aircraft carrier superiority (im not saying that they aren't superior) on Pacific only 4 battleships can be considered fully destroyed by Aircraft (more were destroyed other means), and 2 additional destroyed battleships with could be prevented if they were in operational conditions (Arizona and Oklahoma):

 Arizona, aft ammo magazines were touched off by black powder for aircraft catapults unwisely stored in proximity to the forward main magazines, i debut that someone would do that in war conditions.

Oklahoma damage control team didn't reacted in time, compared to USS West Virginia DCT with reacted in time saving ship despite equal amount of torpedo hits (9)

in that regard Azumazi told me something... that lil talk came ot be when i told him about this very thread

 

Azumazi: The problem is, they are comparing long range heavy bombers to a BB, vs a standard CV bomber
Azumazi: when it came to ship vs ship, the CV was better, but it did still take a lot of planes to get the job done
me: oh and of course, the Tirpitz sitting in her fjord was not of interest for the Royal navy or the US navy nor was the report that she sallied out a reason for a convoy to disperse and take vastly more casualties than they would've had when they would've stuck to conoys
Azumazi: Generally speaking, it took on average 2 Fleet carriers per battleship to sink it
Azumazi: The main thing most people forget, the US had pumped out so many carriers by 1945, that it's hard to remember that's the real reason why the BB's were out classed
me: so a simple "numbers game" once again?

me: want to see the thread?
Azumazi: I mean, **** we had by the end of the war, 16 Essex class fleet carriers, 9 Independence CVL, 1 Yorktown, 1 Lexington, 4 Commencement Bays, 10 Casablancas, and jesus christ we made like 55 Bogue class and gave them to everyone
me: "do you want a bogue?"
"Hmm... yes..."
"here take 2"
Azumazi: we gave the RN 35 of them
Azumazi: and they gave some to the Canadian navy
Azumazi: so yeah, we made a xxxx load of them
Azumazi: now, it only carried up to 24 aircraft
Azumazi: but seriously, that's 24x45 that were in action
Azumazi: so roughly 1080 planes on small carriers
Azumazi: we did finish 24 Essex class, but not all of them were done before the war ended
Azumazi: they were also capable of around 100 aircraft each
Azumazi: That's the main reason why ships like the Yamato and Musashi went down
Azumazi: 600-700 planes
Azumazi: Seriously, 6 fleet carriers with around 7 smaller escort carriers attacked them
Azumazi: that's not a small amount of xxxx you

me: send enough mosquitos and even an elephant will be sucked dry
Azumazi: but initally, the BB's weren't entirely outclassed because of issues with TB and DB"s effectively hitting their targets
Azumazi: and it's not like they were immune from return fire as a few carriers were lost to BB fire
me: HMS Glorious
Azumazi: yep
Azumazi: and 2 Escorts for the US
Azumazi: Gambler Bay

Edited by RohmMohc
5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pushing aside for a moment the effectiveness of BBs in battle (which was present), they had serious strategic impact.

 

For instance, Italian BBs were supposedly useless (except participating in a few battles, but OK, they did not do all that much - Italy had big problems with fuel anyway). However, they forced the RN to deploy considerable assets to the Med. Sea to keep this threat in check. They had a strategic effect, even while sitting in port.

 

Similar story with British BBs - they pretty much shelved any plan of naval invasion. Even if air superiority had been achieved and air support from France could operate relatively unhindered (which is a lot more aircraft than on a carrier, and aircraft which are not hindered with limitations of carrier aircraft) it's very debatable if an invasion could be pulled off due to the British surface fleet. Someone said - carriers could have replaced battleships in all roles - well, carriers could not have achieved this impact, at all.

 

German capital ships again had a strategic effect on RN planning and forced the RN to assign capital ships to convoy escort duties. Carriers could not have replaced them here either, because they would have been powerless to defend a convoy from a capital ship, without an entire carrier group to protect the carrier as well.

 

I'm just not seeing how carriers could replace battleships for all duties in WW2, or how battleships had no effect.

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 1/29/2017 at 3:06 PM, arczer25 said:

Kirov class battlecruisers anyone?

 

its hard to tell how WW2 proved the aircraft carrier superiority (im not saying that they aren't superior) on Pacific only 4 battleships can be considered fully destroyed by Aircraft (more were destroyed other means), and 2 additional destroyed battleships with could be prevented if they were in operational conditions (Arizona and Oklahoma):

 Arizona, aft ammo magazines were touched off by black powder for aircraft catapults unwisely stored in proximity to the forward main magazines, i debut that someone would do that in war conditions.

Oklahoma damage control team didn't reacted in time, compared to USS West Virginia DCT with reacted in time saving ship despite equal amount of torpedo hits (9)

Musashi, Yamato, Prince of Wales, Repulse, Ise.

 

So, 5. But how 4 of them were killed proven how powerful Aircraft were. 

 

That said, as for the US battleships..we have railguns on a Stealth Ship makes it a bit silly to re-active our Battleships. 

 

As for WW2 Battleships, keep in mind the real turning point in the Pacific was what happened in Iron Bottom Sound, and without the South Dakota and Washington (let's be real, it was the Washington that did everything) there was more than a good chance that the US doesn't win that campaign.

Edited by Sakuzhi
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2017 at 8:00 AM, Sakuzhi said:

Musashi, Yamato, Prince of Wales, Repulse, Ise.

 

So, 5. But how 4 of them were killed proven how powerful Aircraft were. 

 

That said, as for the US battleships..we have railguns on a Stealth Ship makes it a bit silly to re-active our Battleships. 

 

As for WW2 Battleships, keep in mind the real turning point in the Pacific was what happened in Iron Bottom Sound, and without the South Dakota and Washington (let's be real, it was the Washington that did everything) there was more than a good chance that the US doesn't win that campaign.

Musahi, Yamato, and Ise were all just due to overwhelming numbers. 

No ship can take on over 15 carriers and expect to do well. That's more of an example of how immense American production was. 

 

HMS Prince of Wales was mainly due to poor damage control assessment. 

The damage that sunk her was mainly from her own prop screw tearing a huge hole in her hull when it was fired up again, because they didn't know that the damage was so bad, leading to the rapid flooding, rather than from the torpedo damage, which they did manage to get under control eventually. 

She could have survived if they had known not to start up that screw again. 

 

HMS Repulse is really the only ship on the list that you can say was lost because of aircraft on even terms. 

And even if you disagree about the PoW, that's still only 2 ships, and these aren't from carrier based aircraft either. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

We lost 5 old WW1 Battleships and built 5 of the modern King George V class during the war.

 

Yeah, Britain considered the Battleship so obsolete we built 5 new ones.....

 

Britain had 15 capital ships in 1939 and 15 in 1945........

 

http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignRoyalNavy.htm

Edited by Fallenkezef
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2017 at 2:24 AM, Eden_Earhart said:

Musahi, Yamato, and Ise were all just due to overwhelming numbers. 

No ship can take on over 15 carriers and expect to do well. That's more of an example of how immense American production was. 

 

HMS Prince of Wales was mainly due to poor damage control assessment. 

The damage that sunk her was mainly from her own prop screw tearing a huge hole in her hull when it was fired up again, because they didn't know that the damage was so bad, leading to the rapid flooding, rather than from the torpedo damage, which they did manage to get under control eventually. 

She could have survived if they had known not to start up that screw again. 

 

HMS Repulse is really the only ship on the list that you can say was lost because of aircraft on even terms. 

And even if you disagree about the PoW, that's still only 2 ships, and these aren't from carrier based aircraft either. 

It is an example of what happens when a mass of aircraft attack a Battleship.

 

Also, the Musashi wasn't exactly attacked by everyone and their cousin(Only two CVs will were involved from my understanding),. The Yamato was granted, hit by some 300+ aircraft 

 

As for the Prince of Wales, well...she'd had just been attacked again even if they did try to limp it away at that point. And this is of course discounting all of the BBs damaged/sunk at Pearl because of obvious reasons.

 

The real issue that caused Battleships to get phased out is that smaller ships could be used for the same task (Because at the Start, and by the End the US had the most Battleships in the world) for less. As well as the threats that the Battleships would face in the future when you started to see the Iowa/NorthCar/Sodak classes getting retired is because they were never great against Torpedoes, and Cruise Missiles were a thing.

 

That and Aircraft got increasingly more effective as the war went on, but at the end of the day. It's the fact that by 1945, only the British had Battleships and they weren't a threat/factor/#Ally. 

 

Then the Soviets did the Submarine thing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Sakuzhi said:

 

Then the Soviets did the Submarine thing.

 

Look at the Falklands and the Belgrano, she was a credible threat due to her exocet missles so we sent a sub to sink her.

 

An aircraft carrier is a better platform for delivering payload due to the aircraft and subs are better cruise missle platforms. BB's where made obsolete by the END of WW2, not the start or even during.

 

Ironicly the British sealed the fate of the BB when we developed angled deck carriers, catapult launch and carrier borne jets and married all three into one platform after WW2. The Americans took this concept further with nuclear power.

1

Share this post


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

The Belgrano didnt have exocet missles, the destroyers that where with her had them. Also she was completly worn out and could only do a little more than half speed.

 

Meh, either way, she was a threat and nobody can complain about losing ships when they start a war.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, hemmerling said:

My cents to the topic, about the role of battleships in WWII:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_in_being

 

 

It's a pretty good article and the basis for British fleet deployment and ship building from the 18th century to WW2.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fallenkezef said:

 

Look at the Falklands and the Belgrano, she was a credible threat due to her exocet missles so we sent a sub to sink her.

 

An aircraft carrier is a better platform for delivering payload due to the aircraft and subs are better cruise missle platforms. BB's where made obsolete by the END of WW2, not the start or even during.

 

Ironicly the British sealed the fate of the BB when we developed angled deck carriers, catapult launch and carrier borne jets and married all three into one platform after WW2. The Americans took this concept further with nuclear power.

Tis me point honestly. 

 

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2017 at 8:56 AM, Sakuzhi said:

It is an example of what happens when a mass of aircraft attack a Battleship.

 

Also, the Musashi wasn't exactly attacked by everyone and their cousin(Only two CVs will were involved from my understanding),. The Yamato was granted, hit by some 300+ aircraft 

 

As for the Prince of Wales, well...she'd had just been attacked again even if they did try to limp it away at that point. And this is of course discounting all of the BBs damaged/sunk at Pearl because of obvious reasons.

 

The real issue that caused Battleships to get phased out is that smaller ships could be used for the same task (Because at the Start, and by the End the US had the most Battleships in the world) for less. As well as the threats that the Battleships would face in the future when you started to see the Iowa/NorthCar/Sodak classes getting retired is because they were never great against Torpedoes, and Cruise Missiles were a thing.

 

That and Aircraft got increasingly more effective as the war went on, but at the end of the day. It's the fact that by 1945, only the British had Battleships and they weren't a threat/factor/#Ally. 

 

Then the Soviets did the Submarine thing.

It wasn't just the Brits that had battleships. Everyone had battleships in 1945. 

If you mean that the British only had bettleships though, then that is incorrect, as they had the Illustrious class carriers, some of the best in the world. 

 

I think a good example of the superiority of planes over battleships would be the sinking of the battleship Roma. It only took a handful of planes with guided bombs to completely destroy the ship with impunity almost, rather than the overwhelming numbers in the Pacific. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2017 at 8:32 AM, Fallenkezef said:

 

Look at the Falklands and the Belgrano, she was a credible threat due to her exocet missles so we sent a sub to sink her.

 

An aircraft carrier is a better platform for delivering payload due to the aircraft and subs are better cruise missle platforms. BB's where made obsolete by the END of WW2, not the start or even during.

 

Ironicly the British sealed the fate of the BB when we developed angled deck carriers, catapult launch and carrier borne jets and married all three into one platform after WW2. The Americans took this concept further with nuclear power.

The Belgrano didn't have any exocet ship...it was navigating outside of the exclusion zone. it was attacked to disrupt peace negotiations only.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Tzalafim said:

The Belgrano didn't have any exocet ship...it was navigating outside of the exclusion zone. it was attacked to disrupt peace negotiations only.

I don't think we really want to get into the Falklands

Sounds like the quickest way to derail any thread. 

1

Share this post


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

I don't think we really want to get into the Falklands

Sounds like the quickest way to derail any thread. 

 

Not really, some third world idiot took on the British and lost. Not much else to say.

 

As far as BB's go in WW2, people tend to look in isolation at either the BB or the CV.

 

The thing is they really complemented each other, available tech meant that they both had roles of equal importance in naval warfare. This is why all sides spent so much time and effort trying to kill the damn things.

 

The post-50's rapid development of naval tech made the BB obsolete. American carriers became bigger and more effective and adopted the flagship role of the old BB in large task forces while SBN class submarines and missle cruisers/destroyers recieved the cruise missles capability to act as long range bombardment vessels.

 

However in WW2 the carrier was not really capable of replacing all the BB's roles and versatility.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd argue it was the colossal material cost of BBs which rendered them obsolete more than any other factor, especially since it had a very limited tactical application; dropping large amounts of indirect hate on other ships, and land targets up to 20 miles from shore. 

 

Comparatively, a CV is materially very cheap. It doesn't need armour, or massive guns with all the associated gubbins. Essentially it's a floating Biggin Hill as opposed to a floating Maginot Line.

 

Strategically, BBs are also limited by the people you're fighting. Where a carrier can deliver its weapons up to the range of its aircraft, a BB is limited to its gunnery range. If this week's bad guy doesn't even have a navy, you've got yourself an extremely expensive artillery piece. 

 

The CV superseded the BB because it was a better weapons platform for the post WW2 world. Arguably, the CV itself is now approaching obsolescence - or at least has experienced a marked decline in prestige and importance - in the modern electronic and insurgency centric combat environment. Yes, there will remain a need to have a mobile airfield, but limited application and the staggering cost of the aircraft these days is now the most critical thing facing CVs.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/04/2017 at 8:08 PM, FliesLikeABrick said:

I'd argue it was the colossal material cost of BBs which rendered them obsolete more than any other factor, especially since it had a very limited tactical application; dropping large amounts of indirect hate on other ships, and land targets up to 20 miles from shore. 

 

Comparatively, a CV is materially very cheap. It doesn't need armour, or massive guns with all the associated gubbins. Essentially it's a floating Biggin Hill as opposed to a floating Maginot Line.

 

Strategically, BBs are also limited by the people you're fighting. Where a carrier can deliver its weapons up to the range of its aircraft, a BB is limited to its gunnery range. If this week's bad guy doesn't even have a navy, you've got yourself an extremely expensive artillery piece. 

 

The CV superseded the BB because it was a better weapons platform for the post WW2 world. Arguably, the CV itself is now approaching obsolescence - or at least has experienced a marked decline in prestige and importance - in the modern electronic and insurgency centric combat environment. Yes, there will remain a need to have a mobile airfield, but limited application and the staggering cost of the aircraft these days is now the most critical thing facing CVs.

 

Aye, rapid advances in tech and capability meant a CV could deliver a payload no BB could compete with.

 

But in WW2 10 14inch guns was just as good as a squadron of dive bombers and in many ways where better especialy in shore bombardment. Also BB's had superior command and control facilities.

 

When we get to the late 50's and early 60's aircraft carriers where different beasts.

 

Ok the Yorktown class of WW2 fontline CV. They carried up to 90 planes but in reality often had less due to wear and tear and battle loss. They had a mix of fighters torpedo bombers and dive bombers and maybe a few recce planes. They had WW2 era limits in payload and range. Most dive bombers carried just one bomb per aircraft.

 

Now let's look at the 50's era Forrestal class. Still only carried around 90 aircraft. However we are now talking high performance naval jets. Look at the 60's era A6 Intruder. It could carry around 8000kg of ordnance on 5 hardpoints.

 

That is the same payload as EIGHT WW2 era Dauntless dive bombers. Those same dive bombers had a range of 1700km the Intruder could do 5000.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm reminded of an anecdote from the Falklands campaign. 

 

After the Atlantic Conveyor was struck by an Exocet, someone senior in the admiralty is lamenting the lack of battleship after a press conference. A keen young hack says "but what about the danger from Exocets?", to which the crusty old admiral says "my dear, an Exocet wouldn't even rattle the crockery on a proper battleship"

Edited by FliesLikeABrick
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Battleships not being useful anymore? Cough Guadalcanal, cough Leyte Gulf. Beach bombardment and carrier protection is important. The Iowa class Battleships are still technically battle worthy with some work. They can still be used and will probably will be. Battleships are imo the best ship other then carriers. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.