• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Wtf And Oddities

Go to CruxDreams.com
Except that is not true it is a myth peddled by those who do not study what navies were actually thinking and doing between the Word Wars. The American Two Ocean Navy Act for example specified 18 carriers to 7 battleships. The Committee for Imperial Defence (British) favoured the carrier but recommended new battleship construction as the effectiveness of carrier aviation and the circumstance under which it was effective were not fully understood and there were still situations in which carriers might find themselves vulnerable to surface warships if unsupported.

There were in fact numerous battleship versus battleship actions in the Atlantic such as Hood and Prince of Wales versus Bismarck and King George V versus Scharnhorst, the Pacific such as South Dakota and Washington versus Karishma and the Mediterranean.

Further but battleships were still retained for a while into the Cold War as high seas in the North Sea for example could curtail carrier operations and you wanted something along that could swat a Sverdlov if it loomed out of the mists...even blipped on radar display.

They used them offshore in the Vietnam conflict. Possibly in the Korean War too?
 
They used them offshore in the Vietnam conflict. Possibly in the Korean War too?

Though you could argue that just made them very expensive monitors :D

Then again battleships built around World War Two were exceptionally tough and well made ships, the USN decided to put cruise missiles and harpoon on the Iowas because they could still do the job though a purpose built modern cruisers could have probably done everything save shore bombardment better. Thus it was a cheapish way of getting another surface action platform afloat.

The professionals do make mistakes but they are professionals for a lot of reasons and lot more goes into the decision making process and draws a lot more on actual combat experience than seems to make it through to the general public.

Battleships in their day just like for example tanks and carriers today have an awful lot of people awfully ready to call obsolescence prematurely.
 
So we are seeing with the carrier the same claims of demise that occurred with the battleship which never actually resulted in the loss of a contemporary battleship to submarine attack
RR, I think you are overlooking HMS Barham, sunk by a submarine attack on November 25th 1941 in tha Mediterranean.

The submarine, U331, broke through the destroyer shield and fired four torpedoes. Due to the sudden loss of weight in the bow, U331 emerged and was almost rammed by HMS Valiant, made an emergency dive, which went out of contro and only ended at 250 m depth, some 150 m below her design maximum safetye depth and 50 m below calculated crush depth. Finally, the U-boat recovered.

HMS Barham, hit by 3 torpedoes, capsized quickly, and blew up. More than 800 were killed.

And there was a camera around :


 
RR, I think you are overlooking HMS Barham, sunk by a submarine attack on November 25th 1941 in tha Mediterranean.

Nope HMS Barham, Queen Elizabeth class battleship, was at Jutland and thus was definitely not a new ship in 1941. 25 years and 2 months old and under the Washington Treaty the Royal Navy would have been allowed to dispose of her in 1935 see Chapter 2, Part 3, Section II under Royal Navy.
 
Last edited:
Nope HMS Barham, Queen Elizabeth class battleship, was at Jutland and thus was definitely not a new ship in 1941. 25 years and 2 months old and under the Washington Treaty the Royal Navy would have been allowed to dispose of her in 1935 see Chapter 2, Part 3, Section II under Royal Navy.
What matters in this discussion? Age or succesful tactics?
So, you can also rule out the sinking of HMS Royal Oak, torpedoes on her moorings in Scapa Flow (October 14 th 1939), because she was also a Jutland veteran?

HMS Audacious, a dreadnought completed in 1912, was sunk by a single mine on October 27th 1914, stressing the vulnerability of such ships against explosives detonated at or under the water line. Generally, speed and size wee seen as a protection, but that did not prevent RMS Lusitania, OK, not a battleship, but still one of the largest and fastest ships in the world then, to be sunk by one torpedo, although she was considered to be too fast for submarines and hence invulnarable against them.

And neither a battleship, but still of 'contemporenous' design, the carrier HMS Ark Royal, torpedoed and sunk by U81 on November 14th 1941. Well, Ark Royal, built 1937, had only 4,5 inch waterline belt armour, the much older HMS Barham and HMS Royal Oak had 13 inch. So, age did not matter, rather a daring U-boat commander who was prepared to take risks, had a Lucky starting position of his attack that neutralised the speed advantage of the surface ship (as was the case with RMS Lusitania), and made a well aimed shot with his torpedoes. That's why it was so difficult to sink a battleship with a much slower submarine, to my opinion.
 
What matters in this discussion? Age or succesful tactics?
So, you can also rule out the sinking of HMS Royal Oak, torpedoes on her moorings in Scapa Flow (October 14 th 1939), because she was also a Jutland veteran?

HMS Audacious, a dreadnought completed in 1912, was sunk by a single mine on October 27th 1914, stressing the vulnerability of such ships against explosives detonated at or under the water line. Generally, speed and size wee seen as a protection, but that did not prevent RMS Lusitania, OK, not a battleship, but still one of the largest and fastest ships in the world then, to be sunk by one torpedo, although she was considered to be too fast for submarines and hence invulnarable against them.

And neither a battleship, but still of 'contemporenous' design, the carrier HMS Ark Royal, torpedoed and sunk by U81 on November 14th 1941. Well, Ark Royal, built 1937, had only 4,5 inch waterline belt armour, the much older HMS Barham and HMS Royal Oak had 13 inch. So, age did not matter, rather a daring U-boat commander who was prepared to take risks, had a Lucky starting position of his attack that neutralised the speed advantage of the surface ship (as was the case with RMS Lusitania), and made a well aimed shot with his torpedoes. That's why it was so difficult to sink a battleship with a much slower submarine, to my opinion.

Yeah age really does matter, successful tactics would have seen many more sinking like Audacious. That mines could occasionally sink modern battleships like Audacious or like the Rheinland render them hors de combat showed them to be weapons of threat. Torpedo boats achieved a similar feat with the sinking of Szent Istvan and attacks on Bolshevik naval forces in port. What they were not was weapons of decision.

The battleships of the Grand Fleet for example were able to maintain their availability to intercept those of the High Seas Fleet and prevent them from interfering with the operations of armed merchant cruisers enforcing the blockade. That made them a weapon of decision.

It matters that battleships were able to modernise their underwater defences and yes largely stay ahead of mines and torpedoes with numerous cases of modern World War Two battleships being mined and torpedoed and returning to operations. Indeed this was also the case with most modern battleships that were so damaged in World War 1, the Audacious was an exception early on in the war before flooding countermeasures and techniques were properly understood by crews. HMS Marlborough not merely survived a torpedo hit at the Battle of Jutland but carried on engaging in the battle and was not detached till afterwards and it was in the immediate follow on class to Audacious.

We thus have to ask given two worlds wars and the experience in the Russian Civil War and conflicts between China and Japan what the actual degree of effectiveness of mines, submarines and torpedo warfare in general actually was?
 
Yeah age really does matter, successful tactics would have seen many more sinking like Audacious. That mines could occasionally sink modern battleships like Audacious or like the Rheinland render them hors de combat showed them to be weapons of threat. Torpedo boats achieved a similar feat with the sinking of Szent Istvan and attacks on Bolshevik naval forces in port. What they were not was weapons of decision.

The battleships of the Grand Fleet for example were able to maintain their availability to intercept those of the High Seas Fleet and prevent them from interfering with the operations of armed merchant cruisers enforcing the blockade. That made them a weapon of decision.

It matters that battleships were able to modernise their underwater defences and yes largely stay ahead of mines and torpedoes with numerous cases of modern World War Two battleships being mined and torpedoed and returning to operations. Indeed this was also the case with most modern battleships that were so damaged in World War 1, the Audacious was an exception early on in the war before flooding countermeasures and techniques were properly understood by crews. HMS Marlborough not merely survived a torpedo hit at the Battle of Jutland but carried on engaging in the battle and was not detached till afterwards and it was in the immediate follow on class to Audacious.

We thus have to ask given two worlds wars and the experience in the Russian Civil War and conflicts between China and Japan what the actual degree of effectiveness of mines, submarines and torpedo warfare in general actually was?

Just a couple of observations.

1. As our rodent says later model battleships were more resistant to torpedo damage than the earlier dreadnoughts. Yes, they had a much better water-tight compartment design, but the big difference was the armoured 'skirt' that became common from the late 20's onwards. At between 10 and 15 inch thickness and pretty much covering the sides the skirt was not something that the average torpedo explosion could even dent let alone breach. Yes, they could be breached by multiple hits on poorly forged brittle steel.

But a battle ship whilst underway is a fast ship .... more modern ones typically reached 30 knots or more - more than enough to make hitting them with a torpedo problematic.

2. Battleships pretty much only retained their use after WW2 because they represented huge somewhat embarrassing (for the naval hierarchy) investments that, at a pinch. could be justified if equipped with stand-off weaponry (sea to ground or ship missiles and more exotic and numerous anti-air weapons to protect carriers). I can only think of a couple of occasions since WW2 that the main 15" or better guns of a battleship were used to bombard land targets (Inchon, Grenada, Panama, Lebanon etc) ... else it was the stand-off weapons (that could theoretically also be carried by any number of other warships/naval platforms) that ruled the day.

That said, the Ohio class battleship was/is a hell of an 'equaliser' if it's standing off your town with its 15" guns layer on the local real estate. (But if the town also has stand-off capability/heavy missile batteries and the like, the battleship shouldn't be there.)

3.
 
Just a couple of observations.

1. As our rodent says later model battleships were more resistant to torpedo damage than the earlier dreadnoughts. Yes, they had a much better water-tight compartment design, but the big difference was the armoured 'skirt' that became common from the late 20's onwards. At between 10 and 15 inch thickness and pretty much covering the sides the skirt was not something that the average torpedo explosion could even dent let alone breach. Yes, they could be breached by multiple hits on poorly forged brittle steel.

But a battle ship whilst underway is a fast ship .... more modern ones typically reached 30 knots or more - more than enough to make hitting them with a torpedo problematic.

2. Battleships pretty much only retained their use after WW2 because they represented huge somewhat embarrassing (for the naval hierarchy) investments that, at a pinch. could be justified if equipped with stand-off weaponry (sea to ground or ship missiles and more exotic and numerous anti-air weapons to protect carriers). I can only think of a couple of occasions since WW2 that the main 15" or better guns of a battleship were used to bombard land targets (Inchon, Grenada, Panama, Lebanon etc) ... else it was the stand-off weapons (that could theoretically also be carried by any number of other warships/naval platforms) that ruled the day.

That said, the Ohio class battleship was/is a hell of an 'equaliser' if it's standing off your town with its 15" guns layer on the local real estate. (But if the town also has stand-off capability/heavy missile batteries and the like, the battleship shouldn't be there.)

3.

1. What happened was each progressive generation of battleships was equipped with stronger iteration of underwater defence often know as anti-torpedo defence. So in WW1 pre-dreadnoughts hit by torpedoes and mines tend to sink, dreadnoughts tended to stay afloat. In WW2 older World War battleships hits by torpedoes frequently sank modern ones survived, were repaired and were operational again.

2. Battleships were retained after World War 2 when they had a role. So early on and by early one I mean into 50s you have battleships as carrier close escorts able to ensure against basically the Sverdlov class as almost everyone who had battleships still was in NATO with the exception of Chile and Argentina who had theirs to oppose each others. The Americans refitted the Iowas as I explained and they did look at further refits and then abandoned them when cost effectiveness was no longer there. Naval procurement in the Cold War was pretty bloody ruthless with lots of ships scrapped and projects cut off at the knees when ever the need for them was deemed past.
 
Fantastic stuff, on a minor point the Scharnhorst was actually sunk by HMS Duke of York. My uncle was a petty officer on board and his account was fascinating. The range was extreme, 16 or 17 miles and during the engagement the enemy was not visible for most of the time.Some pretty sophisticated and secret technology for those days was used to aid the gunnery officers.
 
Fantastic stuff, on a minor point the Scharnhorst was actually sunk by HMS Duke of York. My uncle was a petty officer on board and his account was fascinating. The range was extreme, 16 or 17 miles and during the engagement the enemy was not visible for most of the time.Some pretty sophisticated and secret technology for those days was used to aid the gunnery officers.

You are right...ooops on my part :doh:
 
2. Battleships were retained after World War 2 when they had a role. So early on and by early one I mean into 50s you have battleships as carrier close escorts able to ensure against basically the Sverdlov class as almost everyone who had battleships still was in NATO with the exception of Chile and Argentina who had theirs to oppose each others. The Americans refitted the Iowas as I explained and they did look at further refits and then abandoned them when cost effectiveness was no longer there. Naval procurement in the Cold War was pretty bloody ruthless with lots of ships scrapped and projects cut off at the knees when ever the need for them was deemed past.

OK ... MAJOR question for you.

How many battleships were/have been BUILT (by any country or navy) AFTER World War 2?

Second question:

Why do you think this was?

At a guess, I'd say concentrating personnel, weapons, resources and other valuables on a battle platform proven vulnerable to air attack (and if the Falklands proved anything it was that naval platforms are VERY vulnerable to air/missile attack) is probably not a good idea. In simple terms ... it's never wise to put all your eggs in one basket.

Another observation: The US and other navies primarily built fleet carriers, nuke subs and REALLY BIG destroyers (9000 ton or better) over the last 50 years. (Cruisers remained about the same size they've always been ... between 10 and 16,000 tons.) Recently they've been dabbling in littoral boats (concentrating on stealth and speed), troop, supply and transport capabilities, and smaller in-shore capability craft.

For mine .... the US Marines ... and yes, I realise they are a branch of the Navy ... although the marines probably don't like to admit it :) ... have been the most creative and surprising with their weapons platform and weapons acquisitions for a future conflict. The rest of the navy still has a Big Metal fixation ... which, as Barb originally pointed out, is more than a little risky.

I'm thinking the US navy's experts have been taking little numbers like risk and projected future usage into account and am not denigrating their capabilities at all.
 
OK ... MAJOR question for you.

How many battleships were/have been BUILT (by any country or navy) AFTER World War 2?

Second question:

Why do you think this was?

At a guess, I'd say concentrating personnel, weapons, resources and other valuables on a battle platform proven vulnerable to air attack (and if the Falklands proved anything it was that naval platforms are VERY vulnerable to air/missile attack) is probably not a good idea. In simple terms ... it's never wise to put all your eggs in one basket.

Another observation: The US and other navies primarily built fleet carriers, nuke subs and REALLY BIG destroyers (9000 ton or better) over the last 50 years. (Cruisers remained about the same size they've always been ... between 10 and 16,000 tons.) Recently they've been dabbling in littoral boats (concentrating on stealth and speed), troop, supply and transport capabilities, and smaller in-shore capability craft.

For mine .... the US Marines ... and yes, I realise they are a branch of the Navy ... although the marines probably don't like to admit it :) ... have been the most creative and surprising with their weapons platform and weapons acquisitions for a future conflict. The rest of the navy still has a Big Metal fixation ... which, as Barb originally pointed out, is more than a little risky.

I'm thinking the US navy's experts have been taking little numbers like risk and projected future usage into account and am not denigrating their capabilities at all.

Depends what you mean by built as both Vanguard and Jean Bart were completed after World War 2 though they were started much earlier?

Why do I think it was? I have stated this before. Battleships did not have the weapons range to do much damage before carrier born aircraft had settled matters. However with proper air cover they were survivable. Submarines have a poor record against surface warships post world war two it should be noted, the Phoenix/Belgrano was first commissioned in 1938 for example, the ROKS Cheonan is probably the most modern warship sunk by submarine and that by surprise attack in peacetime.

The Falklands war also showed that modern surface fleets can be very resistant to air attack, the Royal Navy Taskforce was 8,000 miles from home and still competed its mission whilst gutting the Argentine Air Force and Naval Air Force into the bargain. If you look at battleships sunk by air attack it tends to be vessels with inadequate aircover and frequently non-existent air cover. So the Italians at Taranto, the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour, the Repulse and Prince of Wales, the Marat, the Roma, the Yamato class battleships. It is a good idea to have aircraft up but you do not need a very large CAP to do the business.

Aircraft unlike submarines did prove effective in numbers against modern battleships but the key is that a relatively small number of fighters in the air will keep your fleet mostly safe.

Battleships just as carriers were not all eggs in one basket solutions for the major navies. There is a reason the USN has 13 supercarriers, it is redundancy, they can suffer outright loss or damage to several and still flatten anyone else's navy, their coastal infrastructures and even deep inland.

You will always have a jeune ecole extolling the latest 'cheap' alternative weapon system but I am going to strongly suggest that the number of 'cheap' weapons systems required to take out one of the more expensive ones continues to be more expensive in aggregate than the individually more expensive unit.
 
This appears to be a WWI era warship.
What do you mean, "what warship?"

sailor_girl_10.jpg
 
This appears to be a WWI era warship.
What do you mean, "what warship?"

View attachment 773807

I am going to hazard a guess and suggest she is called Aurora.....the cruiser, I mean the cruiser. Anyway yes it does look a lot like the Aurora and the spot she is berthed in Saint Petersburg, maybe someone with Russian language skills could read that sailor cap?
 
new those times war ships are me think: destoryer, cruiser, ironclad me interest 2nd war but me no know much about these Times airplanes and battle ships more abot tanks and vehicles but me know from arpeggio of blue steel anime battleships types. Also if me good know destroyers attack torpeds other ships as much as they can boom boom but weak armor they have and ironclads have good armor and can take much torpeds attack and cruisers more fast porbalry also submarine ships spy and sent quiet rockets to other ships also aircrafts carriers from they brum brum little airplanes but me think me like better ships in pirate times :oops: :cat:
 
I am going to hazard a guess and suggest she is called Aurora.....the cruiser, I mean the cruiser. Anyway yes it does look a lot like the Aurora and the spot she is berthed in Saint Petersburg, maybe someone with Russian language skills could read that sailor cap?
That is indeed the Aurora.
view-of-the-armoured-cruiser-aurora-in-st-petersburg-russia-24-october-KFBR89.jpg
The ship is most famous for having fired the shot that signaled the storming of the Winter Palace during the October Revolution,
She is a museum today, but, like the USS Constitution and the HMS Victory, she is still listed as a commissioned warship.
She is also one of only 5 surviving per-Dreadnaught warships in the world.
 
That is indeed the Aurora.
View attachment 774184
The ship is most famous for having fired the shot that signaled the storming of the Winter Palace during the October Revolution,
She is a museum today, but, like the USS Constitution and the HMS Victory, she is still listed as a commissioned warship.
She is also one of only 5 surviving per-Dreadnaught warships in the world.
The USS Missouri was used in the Korean war, Viet Nam, and Gulf War #1 (I don't believe it was used in round two). Not bad for a battleship that saw action in WWII and had Japan surrender on its deck.
 
The USS Missouri was used in the Korean war, Viet Nam, and Gulf War #1 (I don't believe it was used in round two). Not bad for a battleship that saw action in WWII and had Japan surrender on its deck.

Your home state battleship? ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom