Were battleships actualy usefull in WW 2 ?

[alecsandros]

What they did not realize was that that the development of all those weapons and tactics made the battleship obsolete. They hoarded their own battleships for the decisive engagement, skirmishing with forces they saw as expendable.

That's exactly what I think also.

[Francis Marliere]

Re Japanese expansion into the Asian mainland - IIRC, it was the leaders of the Japanese Army who led the drive to do so (although I'm not completely certain of the exact position ofthe navy leadership in that regard)

Byron,

as far as I understand Evans & Peatty's "Kaigun", the IJN is as responsible as the IJA. The first incidents with China were army's fault but in the 30's there was a purge within the navy which eliminated most of the 'moderate' admirals. Hence the navy became as hot headed as the army. In 1941, the army was not interested in a war with the USA. The IJA wanted to finish China first then attack USSR. The war against USA, Britain and Netherlands was imposed by the navy because of oil embargo. The oil situation was so critic that it turned moderate admirals such as Nagano pushing for war as soon as possible.

Best,

Francis

[Francis Marliere]

The interesting thinmg with the Japanese Navy was that they developed a lot of equipment to attack the enemy battlefleet in assymetric ways, like long range torpedoes, submarines, carrier borne aircraft, long range torpedo bombers, night attacks by destroyers etc, all in the belief that they needed to cripple the enemy battlefleet because it was the ultimate key to naval supremacy. What they did not realize was that that the development of all those weapons and tactics made the battleship obsolete.

What I try to explain (sorry if I am not clear) is that by the time the construction of Yamato class was decided, battleships were not obsolete because most of the weapons you cite were not ready / mature / proven yet. Type 93 torpedoes could not replace battleships because very few hits were expected. Submarines attacks against fleet was just a concept that did not work in any maneuver of the IJN. Night torpedo attacks were also an unproven concept and the complexity of the battle plan made it unlikely to perform as expected (see details in "Kaigun"). Torpedo bombers were not really effective untill the very late 30s, when the battleships were already in construction. Battleships became obsolete after the decision to build them was taken.

I hope I'm clear ...

Best,

Francis

[alecsandros]

Battleships became obsolete after the decision to build them was taken.
Francis

I understand,
And my opinion is that battleships are not obsolete even to this day.

What was obsolete was the way in which they were built and used, especialy by the IJN.

[Vic Dale]

The battleship was a sacred cow, which rarely came up to expectation. They were prestige weapons and everybody who was anybody had to have them. A bit like nukes. No one is going to use nukes as long as everyone has them. That is why proliferation is a good thing. The same was true of the battleship. What a cheek the Kaiser had building battleships, when owning battleships was supposed to be the sole privilege of His Britannic Majesty, King George V.

In it's day, the battleship was looked upon as the terror weapon, but it never had half the clout of the carrier. The dreadnought made all other battleships obsolete on commissioning and that was about as good as it gets in terms of the battleship making it's mark. The most use they have ever been is when providing Naval Gunfire Support (NGS) during a landing, but a Monitor could do that at a fraction of the cost.

As far as any navy is concerned it must get the heaviest weapons to sea, as fast as possible and keep them as safe as possible. That is why there had to be battleships, but they are not the weapons which win the war at sea. Navy's are built to protect commerce and it is the war against the enemy's commerce which is the Navy's prime task at the outbreak of hostilities. The battleship is really not up to that task, as the cruiser and the submarine are far more effective, cheaper to build and cheaper to run. So we have these mighty weapons which are supposed to be matched against other mighty weapons and they will rarely meet unless one or the other is sent out on a task for which it is hardly suited.

Even the great Ships of the Line rarely clashed decisively though on the few occasions they did the devastation was absolute. In the end the ships grappled and fighting went hand to hand, so the battleship very rarely dispatched it's target with gunfire, which it was supposed to be designed to do. At Jutland the greatest sea clash in history, the battle was indecisive, though the outcome kept the High Seas Fleet in harbour, which is not, as the name suggests, what they were intended for. Possibly the money spent on the German Fleet prior to WWI, would have altered the outcome had the money been spent on the army instead.

The battleships are mostly a great disappointment, launched with great expectation only to plough their way majestically across the Oceans, flying the flag or swinging around a buoy, settling on a pile of sardine cans at low tide. They rust and are eventually scrapped, to make way for newer better battleships which would basically do the same as their predecessors. They have been a great and beautiful waste of money, yet no navy would have been complete without them. One of the paradoxes of war I suppose. Or conversely they may be a paradox of peace. Built in peace time they can be the big stick with which to get your way in diplomacy, yet when war breaks out they are utterly misplaced to do anything useful. The Iowas were a good example of this, brought out of mothballs at huge cost they were used to shell shore positions, again a job which a much cheaper monitor could have done. Later they were rearmed and served as Cruise Missile carriers before being written off as obsolete. Those tasks are hardly what you would build a fast, heavily armed and armoured vessel for.

[alecsandros]

The Iowas were a good example of this, brought out of mothballs at huge cost they were used to shell shore positions, again a job which a much cheaper monitor could have done. Later they were rearmed and served as Cruise Missile carriers before being written off as obsolete. Those tasks are hardly what you would build a fast, heavily armed and armoured vessel for.

... BUt still, there are some encounters which would not have been won without the battleship...

second Guadalcanal for example; or North Cape; or even the infamous Denmark Strait battle...

In short, my opinion is that anywhere were the carrier would have difficulties operating (poor weather, extreme latitudes, night,etc) , the battleship would reign supreme...

[by the way: can you imagine the carnage Japanese battlehsips would have brought upon the US carriers at Samar, provided they had better leadership, and perhaps some form of integrated gunnery radars ?
]

[Vic Dale]

One might carry an Elephant gun around just in case, but it would be a lot to lug around on the off chance of finding one at the supermarket.

With a few exceptional events they were waste of time.

I don't think battleships should ever attempt to sink aircraft carriers, the range of a carrier extends to the "out and in" range of her aircraft which can fly at speeds many times that of a battleship. Before a battleship could ever come into tactical range for her guns she would have had to steam for four or five hours within striking range of the carrier's aircraft. This is far too great a risk, because a carrier can turn around it's strike force in less than an hour and be ready to strike at the intruder.

When Admiral Marshall attacked Glorious in the Arctic he took a really stupid risk. Firstly he did not need both ships to be in range to sink her, so one at least could have stayed safe. Had he found Ark Royal that day instead of Glorious he could have been sunk. It was only Glorious' Captain who did not see the strike capabilities of aircraft, which stopped her having patrols in the air looking for targets. He may have been relying on intelligence reports which told him he was safe and never thought S&G would be in the area. Had he known, it might have worked out very differently. May we imagine what would have happened to Marshall if Glorious had had planes in the air?

There might be limitations on a carrier's ability to operate but the odds of catching one with a battleship would be slim.

[alecsandros]

There might be limitations on a carrier's ability to operate but the odds of catching one with a battleship would be slim.

...However, this happened several times in real life.
Mistakes are easy to make...

Also, the evolution of battleship AA systems (artillery + radars + stabilisation + integration) gradualy made air attacks much more costly.

===
And another thing: all large, balanced naval battles involving carriers were inconclusive. Both sides lost large numbers of planes and pilots, without giving a significant blow to the enemy. [Battle of Santa Cruz, Battle of Eastern SOlomons, Battle of Coral Sea were balanced. Battle of Midway was not that balanced as most would think - the US fielded over 350 warplanes, vs about 260 of the Japanese. Even so, at the end of the battle no more than 120 US planes were operational , so the 2 forces lost a similar number of planes. MOreover, the US bombers were very lucky in their attack]

Or, in other terms, when the enemy has similar strength in carriers, the most likely outcome is a stalemate. And from that stalemate you can only get out with surface actions...

[paul.mercer]

The battleship was a sacred cow, which rarely came up to expectation. They were prestige weapons and everybody who was anybody had to have them. A bit like nukes. No one is going to use nukes as long as everyone has them. That is why proliferation is a good thing. The same was true of the battleship. What a cheek the Kaiser had building battleships, when owning battleships was supposed to be the sole privilege of His Britannic Majesty, King George V.

In it's day, the battleship was looked upon as the terror weapon, but it never had half the clout of the carrier. The dreadnought made all other battleships obsolete on commissioning and that was about as good as it gets in terms of the battleship making it's mark. The most use they have ever been is when providing Naval Gunfire Support (NGS) during a landing, but a Monitor could do that at a fraction of the cost.

The battleships are mostly a great disappointment, launched with great expectation only to plough their way majestically across the Oceans, flying the flag or swinging around a buoy, settling on a pile of sardine cans at low tide. They rust and are eventually scrapped, to make way for newer better battleships which would basically do the same as their predecessors. They have been a great and beautiful waste of money, yet no navy would have been complete without them. One of the paradoxes of war I suppose. Or conversely they may be a paradox of peace. Built in peace time they can be the big stick with which to get your way in diplomacy, yet when war breaks out they are utterly misplaced to do anything useful.

Gentlemen,
I think Vic sums it up perfectly. Much as I love reading about battleships and battlecruisers I have to admit they were a status symbol for the big nations, I suppose they did have some uses, the QE's in the Med effectivly kept the Italian fleet in harbour and the fear that the French ships might fall into German hands caused the RN to attack them and put them out of action. and the idea of a 'fleet in being' like Tirpitz and Scharnhorst in Norway kept two powerful battleships in Scarpa in case they came out. At the start of WW2 the usefulness of the carrier was not really appreciated but they effectivly put paid to the battleship era in the end.

[Byron Angel]

Monitors were no substitute for seagoing BBs in terms of providing naval gunfire support in connection with an oceanic campaign. They were hopelessly slow in terms of both tactical and operational speed and lacked the necessary operational radius/endurance. They carried a paltry main battery armament in comparison to a BB and lacked magazine capacity. Unlike BBs, they would have provided no protection against surface action threats against the task force (think Surigao Strait or 2nd Guadalcanal with monitors substituted for US BBs). More importantly, their paltry AAA outfit meant that they would have been unable to provide anti-aircraft cover to the fleet carrier (a very important function of US BBs in WW2). Monitors had their uses, but not as substitutes for BBs in a fast sea-going carrier strike force.

CVs unquestionably dominated WW2 naval warfare (at least in the Pacific), but every diva and rock star has to have bodyguards - and that was the function of BBs (US BBs at least) in WW2 - different from its original job description, no important in its own right. It must be kept in mind that on the outbreak of WW2 the CV was an unperfected weapon system. There were great expectations to be sure, but their true utility and potential remained to be proven by events. Pre-war naval planners cannot be indicted for showing caution in their planning.

B

[alecsandros]

CVs unquestionably dominated WW2 naval warfare (at least in the Pacific), but every diva and rock star has to have bodyguards - and that was the function of BBs (US BBs at least) in WW2 - different from its original job description, no important in its own right. It must be kept in mind that on the outbreak of WW2 the CV was an unperfected weapon system. There were great expectations to be sure, but their true utility and potential remained to be proven by events. Pre-war naval planners cannot be indicted for showing caution in their planning.

B

Hi Byron,

What should be added, IMO, is that US fleet carriers dominated the Pacific war because they were built and concentrated en masse, and all the time protected by large screens of DDs and CAs.

In the Atlantic and the Mediteranean, the carrier's role was a far lesser one...

[Byron Angel]

Hi Byron,

What should be added, IMO, is that US fleet carriers dominated the Pacific war because they were built and concentrated en masse, and all the time protected by large screens of DDs and CAs.

In the Atlantic and the Mediteranean, the carrier's role was a far lesser one...

..... I don't think there is any question that the European naval campaigns materially differed from that of the Pacific - not so much because naval air power was less important in the European theater, but because England, Italy, Greece, Iceland and Norway all functioned as gigantic unsinkable CV analogues that dominated their respective ocean surroundings. My opinion, anyways.

B

[RF]

..... I don't think there is any question that the European naval campaigns materially differed from that of the Pacific - not so much because naval air power was less important in the European theater, but because England, Italy, Greece, Iceland and Norway all functioned as gigantic unsinkable CV analogues that dominated their respective ocean surroundings. My opinion, anyways.
B

Yes, this was so towards the end of of the initial stages of WW2 onwards. Even then there was the mid-Atlantic Air Gap. But not in the early years of WW2 when the surface raiders were able to strike.

[RF]

In the Atlantic and the Mediteranean, the carrier's role was a far lesser one...

Agreed - not least because Japan was the only Axis power with operational aircraft carriers.

Had Graf Zeppelin and Flugzugtrager B been brought into action things might have been hotter in the Atlantic, especially in the years prior to US entry to WW2.

[paul.mercer]

Gentlemen,
Just finished watching one of the almost endless epeats of 'The World at War' it seems that the US battleships were quite useful when it came to bombarding on some of the Japanese held islands before tey were invaded.