Why built useless battleships?

[Tirpitzfan1234]

Is know that for the Great War of Aggression Against Germany, the Battleships were uselees as proved by the fact both side feared use their battleships in battle.

So why bother building a ship that will never be built when you can go for more crusiers and submarines, (and some deathly torpedo destroyers)?

[OpanaPointer]

"Great War of Aggression Against Germany,"

CHORTLE

[paul.mercer]

What great war of aggression against Germany? If I recall my history correctly, Germany was the aggressor in WW1 and WW2.
As for useless battleships, it was the threat of the possibility of confronting the entire Grand Fleet at Jutland that caused Sheer to run back home in WW1. Perhaps you might also recall that both Bismarck and Scharnhorst were shot to pieces by RN battleship(s) while Gneisnau and Tirpitz were sunk while skulking in a harbour by the RAF because the Kreigsmarine knew that the British battleships were at sea waiting for them to come out.
It should also be remembered that when the twins did put to sea the mere presence of a RN battleship escorting a convoy was enough to deter them from attacking it. Of course, it could be argued that Germany building 2 battleships and 2 battlecruisers was a waste of money when that money could have been spent on U boats, particularly in view of the overwhelming superiority of the RN and US fleets, but this was just a fantasy idea of Hitler and the Kreigsmarine to have a showpiece of German power.
The battleship, from the time of huge 100 gun wooden construction ships to the end of the heavily armoured steel ships of WW2 had their time when sea power was needed to protect the sea routes to British and other Empires and overawe any potential aggressor who dared to challenge them. While would agree that the battleship played a smaller role in WW2 compared with the aircraft carrier and that most were too slow to keep up with a carrier fleet they also had a significant part in bombarding the Japanese positions in the Pacific war and while totally obsolete today, don't forget that a couple of Iowas were recommissioned for bombardment in Vietnam and the first Gulf war - 9 tons of explosive shells arriving on your position every few minutes is not to be ignored!
So, while they became ere increasingly irrevallant towards the end of WW2, were they useless? No!

[Byron Angel]

"If I recall my history correctly, Germany was the aggressor in WW1"

That's the official story line, as established and maintained by the victors. The full story, after some lengthy study, appears a great deal murkier and unflattering to the Entente.

As to German construction of heavy surface ships, they might be legitimately be viewed as a hedge against any potential Soviet threat in the Baltic. Any German war effort was absolutely reliant upon Swedish iron ore (and certain precision manufactured items like ball bearings). IIRC, Swedish iron ore represented something like half the iron and steel produced by Germany in WW1. FWIW.

Byron

[OpanaPointer]

That's the official story line, as established and maintained by the victors.

LOL

[paul.mercer]

Gentlemen,
I'm a bit puzzled about what you mean when you say 'that's the official story line'.
As far as the Navy part in WW1, was it not the Keiser who decided to build a fleet that he hoped would be a serious challenge to the RN and to pose a threat to the British Empire and in WW2 was it not Hitler whose invasion of Poland sparked off the war?
What is your opinion?

[Byron Angel]

Gentlemen,
I'm a bit puzzled about what you mean when you say 'that's the official story line'.
As far as the Navy part in WW1, was it not the Keiser who decided to build a fleet that he hoped would be a serious challenge to the RN and to pose a threat to the British Empire and in WW2 was it not Hitler whose invasion of Poland sparked off the war?
What is your opinion?

Check your PM

Byron

[Mostlyharmless]

Clearly Germany was the aggressor in WW2. Identifying the guilty party for WW1 reminds me of Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express. For example, Britain could have defused the July Crisis by simply saying that they were not going to be drawn into a war in defence of Serbia. Instead by saying nothing to Germany and privately assuring France and Russia that they had Britain's full support, they did everything possible to ensure war. They were all guilty!

[Byron Angel]

Clearly Germany was the aggressor in WW2. Identifying the guilty party for WW1 reminds me of Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express. For example, Britain could have defused the July Crisis by simply saying that they were not going to be drawn into a war in defence of Serbia. Instead by saying nothing to Germany and privately assuring France and Russia that they had Britain's full support, they did everything possible to ensure war. They were all guilty!

Hi Mostlyharmless,
The reason Great Britain privately assured France and Russia that they had Britain's full support is because in 1907 (at France's invitation) Great Britain had formally joined France and Russia (the "Dual Alliance") to form the "Triple Entente".

I really don't want to get into detail; it will only derail the thread. Suffice it to say that Germany did NOT want to fight this war. The deeper one delves into the matter, the fishier the entire "German war guilt" theme smells.

Byron

[paul.mercer]

Gentlemen,
Many thanks for your replies which certainly gives one something to think about the situation leading up to WW1.
As I stated in a former post, I do wonder whether part of it was because the Kaiser ordered Germany to build a large battlefleet that could have posed a serious threat to GB which pretty much ruled the North Sea (and many other seas around the world at the time!) the British Government decided that they could not allow it to go unchallenged?

[HMSVF]

Is know that for the Great War of Aggression Against Germany, the Battleships were uselees as proved by the fact both side feared use their battleships in battle.

So why bother building a ship that will never be built when you can go for more crusiers and submarines, (and some deathly torpedo destroyers)?

Because the ships of 1914 weren't fitted with Mk1 Retroscopes.

Battleships in whatever form had been the currency of what determined sea power for the previous 400 odd years. To say that nobody thought about such things is untrue - the French with their Jeune Ecole (?spelling) certainly thought about closing the gap with the RN by using smaller ships such as torpedo boats and cruisers but even they continued to construct battleships (well, more a series of prototypes - but that's another story! Personally, I love them. Wouldn't wanted to have served on one but...)


You could ask why the navies of the world still have carriers in the light of hypersonic missiles, super quiet SSN's etc. Probably in 50 years people will be asking the same question you have asked about battleships.

[OpanaPointer]

I really don't want to get into detail; it will only derail the thread. Suffice it to say that Germany did NOT want to fight this war. The deeper one delves into the matter, the fishier the entire "German war guilt" theme smells.

Byron

Wehraboo senses tingling.

[Byron Angel]

I really don't want to get into detail; it will only derail the thread. Suffice it to say that Germany did NOT want to fight this war. The deeper one delves into the matter, the fishier the entire "German war guilt" theme smells.

Byron

Wehraboo senses tingling.

Totally understand. It is so much easier to embrace the official story line. I made the mistake of getting curious and reading more deeply into the issue. Don’t go there if you value your myths.

Byron

[OpanaPointer]

I really don't want to get into detail; it will only derail the thread. Suffice it to say that Germany did NOT want to fight this war. The deeper one delves into the matter, the fishier the entire "German war guilt" theme smells.

Byron

Wehraboo senses tingling.

Totally understand. It is so much easier to embrace the official story line. I made the mistake of getting curious and reading more deeply into the issue. Don’t go there if you value your myths.

Byron

I first got interested in WWII before I went to the first grade. I am a documentarian for a few military historical sites, in the US and elsewhere. I spent fourteen years at Purdue helping teach the students about WWII. I worked with Patrick Clancy in establishing Hyperwar.

On the gripping hand all I've seen from you is poorly founded inuendoes.

[Mostlyharmless]

I am not sure where either of you are coming from. It seems obvious to me that Germany decided that this war was better than a later one possibly without Austria as an ally; that Britain decided that risking a war was better than facing the threat from Russia in Asia especially if Russia and Germany might be allies; that France wanted war to regain Alsace-Lorraine; that Austria thought that the assassination put right on their side so that they could squash the annoying Serbs; that some in Russia hoped for a short victorious war (yes I know a quote from 1904) to stabilize the government and that Serbia's government was in bed with a gang of assassins.

I am happy with German war guilt except that everyone else was also guilty (OK Belgium was innocent).

However, the most guilty were Russia and France because they were not faced with any obvious threat. Germany and Britain were acting out of fear.