Were battleships actualy usefull in WW 2 ?

[Dave Saxton]

Besides Iowas and Yamatos, I cannot think of another class of WW2 battleship that I would rate as a clearly more powerful ship than Washington/NC. Really, only the Tirpitzes, South Dakotas, and Vanguard are even contenders.

I agree. I have always liked the NCs more than the SDs. (I view the SDs as one step forward and two steps back.) The main draw back of the NCs is the relatively weak protection.

and a case might be held that they (Axis BBs) did not have a chance of playing a decisive role as long as the Allied yielded much more modern heavy ships....Yes, but as long as the enemy had modern fast battleships, they (SH and DNK) couldn't hope to play the role of capital ships. Imagine Scharnhorst against Washington, or DUnkerque versus Vanguard.

Doesn't these thoughts indicate just how useful the existence of the modern Allied BBs were? Note that SH had stronger armour protection than NC.

[alecsandros]

Doesn't these thoughts indicate just how useful the existence of the modern Allied BBs were?

Maybe, to some extent...

But those few Axis BBs could have been countered by strong CA + DD task forces nonetheless.

After all, what is a navy supposed to do ?
- protect shipping lanes
- attack enemy shipping lanes
- bombard some inland positions
- engage enemy navy

All of those points may well have been covered by lighter forces, with CV coverage...

[Ersatz Yorck]

Let me put it this way: In may 1941, what would you rather have if you were admiral Raeder: One 50000 ton battleship and one 20000 ton cruiser ready for action or 70 additional 1000 ton submarines ready for action? Note that this is twice the number of German uboats operational at that time.

[LeopardTooth]

Let me put it this way: In may 1941, what would you rather have if you were admiral Raeder: One 50000 ton battleship and one 20000 ton cruiser ready for action or 70 additional 1000 ton submarines ready for action? Note that this is twice the number of German uboats operational at that time.

When you put it that way, the answer answers itself.

I can think of a few times in WW2 when the battleship was clearly King, though, and really, it is difficult to imagine any other realistic replacement triumphing them:

* British (and allies) hunts for surface raiders: Operation Rheinübung, Operation Berlin, North Cape, Graf Spee, etc
* The fleet actions in the Mediterranean (Cape Matapan, Cape Spartivento, Halberd, Sirte, Vigorous, and all the various other feints and back-and-forths)
* Off Guadalcanal Oct 13 and then Nov 12-15, 1942

[LeopardTooth]

Me:
I would pick an Alaska or Dunkerque class battlecruiser or a Scharnhorst class undergunned battleship over an Nevada, Bretagne, Arkansas, New York, or Courbet class battleship. I would also pick one of the more modern vessels over as the probably victor over a New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Cavour, or Andrea Doria class battleship, and better than even odds against a Tennessee or Revenge.

Alecsandros:
Yes, but as long as the enemy had modern fast battleships, they couldn't hope to play the role of capital ships. Imagine Scharnhorst against Washington, or DUnkerque versus Vanguard.

I know many people here disagree, and probably could produce a wide variety of facts and numbers to support such disagreement, but I think that the Alaskas were bad ass ships. It is my impression that the United States was the richest nation in the world at the time that they were made, and that American ship architects had some time to learn from the early years of WW2, and that they were extraordinarily well-made. I can imagine them having a decent chance against a KGV or a Vittorio Veneto. (don't have time to look up muzzle velocity, armor plate effectiveness ratings, effectiveness of fire controllers, or any other technical specs - just making a broad assertion)

Other than that - good points Alecsandros.

[alecsandros]

Let me put it this way: In may 1941, what would you rather have if you were admiral Raeder: One 50000 ton battleship and one 20000 ton cruiser ready for action or 70 additional 1000 ton submarines ready for action? Note that this is twice the number of German uboats operational at that time.

I would take the battleship to start a legend, but the uboats to win a war...

[alecsandros]

Me:

I know many people here disagree, and probably could produce a wide variety of facts and numbers to support such disagreement, but I think that the Alaskas were bad ass ships.

.

They were, and it 's a shame they dind't have more time to prove their worth.

[Mostlyharmless]

Let me put it this way: In may 1941, what would you rather have if you were admiral Raeder: One 50000 ton battleship and one 20000 ton cruiser ready for action or 70 additional 1000 ton submarines ready for action? Note that this is twice the number of German uboats operational at that time.

Battleships might be the best idea if you had permission from the Anglo-German Naval Treaty to build battleships but not to build additional submarines. The German battleships were also part of the reason why Britain built five KGVs rather than 150 extra escorts.

The worse error was to build Yamato and Musashi and not to use them until too late. For example, Yamato was sufficiently hard to sink that she could have been risked 100 miles East of the Kido Butai on 4th June 1942.

[alecsandros]

Let me put it this way: In may 1941, what would you rather have if you were admiral Raeder: One 50000 ton battleship and one 20000 ton cruiser ready for action or 70 additional 1000 ton submarines ready for action? Note that this is twice the number of German uboats operational at that time.

Battleships might be the best idea if you had permission from the Anglo-German Naval Treaty to build battleships but not to build additional submarines. The German battleships were also part of the reason why Britain built five KGVs rather than 150 extra escorts.

Not quite so.
Britain also had interests in the Med and Pacific and INdian Ocean, thus the KGVs were built to counter Italian and Japanese modern battleships.

[Ersatz Yorck]

Let me put it this way: In may 1941, what would you rather have if you were admiral Raeder: One 50000 ton battleship and one 20000 ton cruiser ready for action or 70 additional 1000 ton submarines ready for action? Note that this is twice the number of German uboats operational at that time.

Battleships might be the best idea if you had permission from the Anglo-German Naval Treaty to build battleships but not to build additional submarines. The German battleships were also part of the reason why Britain built five KGVs rather than 150 extra escorts.

That is a good point, and always the problem with what-if scenarios, somebody else would have done something different as well. But as Alecsandros points out, Britain had other committments as well.

A surge of over 100 uboats at sea in 1941 would have brought sinkings to 1942 levels at a time when Britain was alone and ASW measures far less developed. We all know how many merchants Bismarck and Prinz Eugen sank, and we can compute fairly accurately how many merchants were sunk per month per uboat in the Atlantic. 70 additional uboats at sea might, not with any certainty but might just, have brought Britain to her knees, something Bismarck and Prinz Eugen failed signally to do.

The worse error was to build Yamato and Musashi and not to use them until too late. For example, Yamato was sufficiently hard to sink that she could have been risked 100 miles East of the Kido Butai on 4th June 1942.

Interesting thought! Yamato as a magnet for strikes ahead of the Kido Butai might have won the battle of Midway for the Japanese! But then the Japanese still at that time probably saw the battleships as the ultimate arbiter of seapower, and therefore to be preserved as long as possible. Ironic indeed!

[LeopardTooth]

Mostlyharmless wrote:The worse error was to build Yamato and Musashi and not to use them until too late. For example, Yamato was sufficiently hard to sink that she could have been risked 100 miles East of the Kido Butai on 4th June 1942.

Ersatz Yorck wrote: Interesting thought! Yamato as a magnet for strikes ahead of the Kido Butai might have won the battle of Midway for the Japanese! But then the Japanese still at that time probably saw the battleships as the ultimate arbiter of seapower, and therefore to be preserved as long as possible. Ironic indeed!

Fascinating suggestion. Yes, that does seem like it would have been a smart move.

But optimal concentration of force seems to have been generally a weak point for the IJN throughout the war ...

[Dave Saxton]

I can imagine them (Alaska Class) having a decent chance against a KGV or a Vittorio Veneto. (don't have time to look up muzzle velocity, armor plate effectiveness ratings, effectiveness of fire controllers, or any other technical specs - just making a broad assertion)

A KGV or a VV, even a Scharnhorst, would have made short work of an Alaska. The vitals armour protection of an Alaska was a 5"-9" belt (unsloped) and deck protection over the magazines that calculates to 3.6" effective. The VV's 15" gun could defeat the Alaska's belt out to 40,000 meters battle range. It would not have any immunity zone at any battle range vs a KG5 or a VV. Scharnhorst with 11" guns could defeat the belt out to 25,000 meters battle range.

I don't know if the Alaskas were well built or not but they were not well designed. They seemed to be somewhere between a heavy cruiser and a battle cruiser. They used only a single rudder which gave them poor manouverability. They had no underwater protection system. Standard displacement was 29,800 tons!

[Dave Saxton]

But those few Axis BBs could have been countered by strong CA + DD task forces nonetheless....

Historically this did not prove to be correct. Kondo had a strong force of CA's and DDs but still eventually lost to Lee's BBs, even with Kondo having a BC to bolster his CA's and DDs. (The failure of the Japanese torpedoes may have been a big factor though).

Abe crushed (tactically) the American cruisers and destroyers at the Battle of Friday the 13th with a task force centered on the Hiei and Kirishima.

Vians DD's were not effective against even the crippled Bismarck.

What about Warspite at Narvik? (The failure of the German torpedoes may have played a big factor though)

What about the fate of the Italian heavy cruisers to the guns of Valiant, Barham, and Warspite, in the dark where BBs should be greatly vulnerable to DDs and CAs?

Perhaps the best example of cruisers and destroyers being dominated by a battleship is the second engagement during N. Cape. Scharnhorst fighting without a forward radar set; heavilly damaged both the Norfolk and the Sheffield, in a matter of minutes, effectively sweeping the British cruisers aside, and that despite the intervention of four additional fleet destroyers. It was only Bey inexplicably deciding to turn for home that saved the situation for Burnett.

[Dave Saxton]

Let me put it this way: In may 1941, what would you rather have if you were admiral Raeder: One 50000 ton battleship and one 20000 ton cruiser ready for action or 70 additional 1000 ton submarines ready for action? Note that this is twice the number of German uboats operational at that time.

I knew this thread would come down to this.

[alecsandros]

Historically this did not prove to be correct. Kondo had a strong force of CA's and DDs but still eventually lost to Lee's BBs, even with Kondo having a BC to bolster his CA's and DDs. (The failure of the Japanese torpedoes may have been a big factor though)...

Well, perhaps, but the battles you mention were heavily influneced by circumstance.
The position and the way the German DDs operated at Narvik was very bad. Warspite was not alone there, but with serious DD escort of her own.
In the 1st Guadalcanal, Hiei was a blazing wrekc after being pounded by 5" gunfire from US DDs. That's why she was sunk the next morning. And that turned a tactical victory into a strategic defeat for the Japanese.
Italian ships had notoriously poor leadership and no radar, thus succumbing swiftly to heavy gunfire (which they did not anticipate at all)

Scharnohrst wouldn't have been caught at all if it weren't for Savage, Saumarez, Stord and Scorpion, which hit her with 4 torpedoes, allowing the heavy units to close in. They did in 20 minutes what Duke of York coudln't do in 1 hour...

Vian's destroyers were not supposed to sink Bismarck, but more likely to harass her and keep her in sights until heavy units arrived...

----

Let's remember the chaos 7 brave US DDs inflicted on 4 Japanese battleships (with heavy escorts) at Samar...
Or the punishment Japanese heavy ships suffered from US DDs and torpedo boats at Surigao Strait.
Or the severe damage Scharnhorst suffered while attacking Glorious...

Battleship commanders always feared destroyer attacks, as a single torpedo could cripple their ship...

---
Maybe in the right conditions and right positions battleships can be usefull, but certainly not always and not even in the most cases. ..

Cheers,