Age of the battleship really ended when?

[richter111]

Granted, Mitchell's actions may have been viewed as a stunt. However, it did illustrate quite graphically what was possible, even with flimsy wood and fabric covered bombers of the day.

Trust me the "stunt" was not lost on the Japanese, or Hitler for that matter

[bengtsson]

Granted, Mitchell's actions may have been viewed as a stunt. However, it did illustrate quite graphically what was possible, even with flimsy wood and fabric covered bombers of the day.

Trust me the "stunt" was not lost on the Japanese, or Hitler for that matter

I think the Japanese performed a 'stunt' of their own shortly after Mitchell's action. I seem to recall reading about it. Yes, I have just found it, here it is .

"The Japanese began their experiments with the form Russian Navy Battleship RETVIZAN. The Imperial Navy and Army aircraft used her as a target in Sagami Bay in July 1924. Several months later they took the 1909 Battleship SATSUMA and bombed her along with surface torpedo attacks.
Yamamoto arranged further tests in Tokyo Bay in August 1930. This time it was the old Protected Cruiser AKASHI, she survived both numerous bomb hits and aerial torpedo attacks [which missed]. DD torpedos finally sank her.

It should have come as no surprise that aerial bombs could sink a major warship. At the time, the Admirals looked to speed and new AA guns to counter the air minded officer's claims of surface ship vulnerability".

Bob B.

[Werner]

I don't think sinking the Ostfriesland was the achievement made out to be.

Several WW.I battleships were sunk by much less. Audacious, new and fully manned was lost to a 20Kg mine. Several contemporaries of Ostfriesland, in similar material condition, simply sank on their own during a tow to the breakers. 2000 pound bombs sunk on an unmanned, moored vessel which can not take defensive measures or apply damage control can be called nothing but a public relations demonstration.

The Navy wanted to conduct a scientific inquiry, noting damage after each bomb, but the publicity hound Mitchell had to score his kill for the cameras.

HMS Audacious

[Chuck~]

.....Audacious, new and fully manned was lost to a 20Kg mine. Several contemporaries of Ostfriesland, in similar material condition, simply sank on their own during a tow to the breakers. 2000 pound bombs sunk on an unmanned, moored vessel which can not take defensive measures or apply damage control can be called nothing but a public relations demonstration.
HMS Audacious

Audacious' sinking is by a 300 lb mine, not a 20 kg mine. IIRC, although Audacious's underwater defense was so poor that it practically didn't exist, still Audacious would have survived, and probably even remained battleworthy, had it not been for a special combination of circumstances and institutionalized incompetence that allowed her to down flood from above rather than simply flooding through underwater damage. You can compare that to one of Iron Duke class absorbing a torpedo during Jutland and remained in formation and battleworthy. Several German ships also absorbed torpedo and mine hits and remain sea worthy during that era. Goeben comes to mind. She hit 3 mines in quick succession and sailed around for the rest of the war with those damage repaired.

Also, a stripped dead ship under tow founders much more easily than a fully manned, live ship that can button down and react on her own. A ship need not be in poor material condition or suffer any significant design flaws to sink under the careless tow of a trip to breaker's yard.

[Chuck~]

Trust me the "stunt" was not lost on the Japanese, or Hitler for that matter

Really, in what way?

Neither the Germans nor the Japanese ever put much faith in horizontal bombing of ships in the Billy Mitchell style. Sure, they thought such practices by enemies might be nuisance enough to warrant some heavy AA guns for shooting back, but both of them had thought this exact thing even back during WWI before anyone has ever watched the infomercial from Billy Mitchell. Billy Mitchell or no, neither of them thought the Mitchellesque practice would actually be effective enough for them to do it themselves on any large scale.

The fact that they developed dive bombing and torpedo bombing is probably because they have eyes like everyone else, and they can see the immediate potential of unfolding technology in 1930 rather more clearly than the Billy in his self-styled clairvoyance could in 1921. There is no need give Billy credit for seeing something that everyone else would have in their own time saw more clearly.

[richter111]

Think of it as publicity.

All of a sudden, it was out there, in the open. Granted these things were known before hand, but the reaction that followed certainly put more minds thinking about the concept than were aware of it before.

More brain power equals better results. (assuming you have intelligence behind the process)

Battleships were doomed when the first aircraft, and the first submarines were invented.

it took someone throwing a dart at another airplane for the other guy to mount a 30 mm Vulcan

[richter111]

I do not remember the exact date, but there was a exercise where the Saratoga (I believe) was tasked to shut down the Panama Canal.

That would be a wide open death knell, because the results of the exercise was threat the Saratoga capture or put it out of commission.

Ric

I am reallyfuzzy about the exact facts, but the gist of the exercise was there. Anyone with more info, feel free to expand and correct

Ric

[Werner]

Audacious' sinking is by a 300 lb mine, not a 20 kg mine.

Check again before shooting your weapon. Even the German accounts agree that the burster was 20Kg of wet guncotton, not 120Kg.

Ostfriesland was, if anything, a design generation behind Audacious, and lacked any benefit of a numerous damage control team, or even working pumps. She was a moored derelict.

[Werner]

The fact that they developed dive bombing and torpedo bombing is probably because they have eyes like everyone else, and they can see the immediate potential of unfolding technology in 1930 rather more clearly than the Billy in his self-styled clairvoyance could in 1921. There is no need give Billy credit for seeing something that everyone else would have in their own time saw more clearly.

Actually, they conceived their tactical air as part of the "combined arms" necessary for Blitzkrieg. Strategic bombing was somewhat neglected, but the real strategic bombers were developed by countries which had long sea approaches to protect. The B-17's authorizations, for example, stress it's usefulness as a maritime patrol and protection system. Germany had no such issues, so we would not expect to see long range, medium and high altitude bombers, which incidentally could be massed into strategic raids (which were in any case a clear violation of the Geneva Convention).

[Guest]

Audacious' sinking is by a 300 lb mine, not a 20 kg mine.

Check again before shooting your weapon. Even the German accounts agree that the burster was 20Kg of wet guncotton, not 120Kg.

Ostfriesland was, if anything, a design generation behind Audacious, and lacked any benefit of a numerous damage control team, or even working pumps. She was a moored derelict.

Perhaps you should check yours and provide the "german" source. Perfunctory check of common source online show a range of 180-300lbs of gun cotton.
whether the ostfriesland belong to an earlier or later generation is of no interst to assessment of damage resistance. Goeben a ship of basically the same generation withstood 3 mines in quick succession.

[Werner]

whether the ostfriesland belong to an earlier or later generation is of no interst to assessment of damage resistance. Goeben a ship of basically the same generation withstood 3 mines in quick succession.

OK, setting aside the warhead size for a moment (we can do that because the order of detonation was so slight, Audacious' crew was not certain she had struck a mine), did Ostfriesland also not suffer for a lack of damage control? Your argument seems to support my view....

[Guest]

yes. A battleship well designed by 1910 standards, manned by a competent crew and in a good state of readiness could evidently absorb very considerable underwater damage. You seem to have been arguing otherwise when you seemed to imply that audacious fell to a truly trivial amount of underwater damage and this was somehow indicative of battleships in general.

[Werner]

Chuck, I was merely saying Gen. Mitchell's attack on Ostfriesland was a simple act of political grandstanding, which has no relation to Taranto or Pearl Harbor. These were carefully researched operations which relied on military doctrine developed over decades, and have no connection with the tests off the Virginia Capes in 1921.

[richter111]

Just a thought

The whole question turns on the issue of:

"When did the age of battleships end, in regards to what role?"

As a shore bombardment platform, I think there is still a need for this role.

As a ultimate queen of the seas, militarily against aircraft carriers and submarines, I feel it ended when these frail craft first began to hit the seas.

As a prestige item, they will live on as the biggest and baddest. When one pulls up on the coast line, it's hard to argue with a gun that can lob a shell the weight of a Cadillac at you...

[Andy G]

January 16th, 1877...the first sinking of a vessel by a self-propelled torpedo.

That's the end of the gun-versus-gun era, and that's the only era where a battleship (in every meaning of the word) makes sense. Sure, they stuck around for a generation or two while torpedoes were improved: but add submarines and, later, aircraft - they were doomed.

Meanwhile, all this talk of the benefits of "shore bombardment" make me think people have forgotten what monitors are for. You certainly don't need 30kts and thousand of tonnes of armour on a big gun to make holes on beaches.

Andy

[SumGui]

The first hit was when the powers that be decided to all but ignore aircraft as a threat (1920-1935).

Then there was a resurgence, as the newer battleships were designed with better AA and (some) deck armor, and these modern battleships did well in WWII when employed as part of a group.

Battleships were finally left behind when their AA weapons were obsolete - about the end of WWII, and no one cared to update them. No 3"/50s, no SAM systems.

Then they became relevant again in 1967. The Anti-ship missile was the new nasty toy on the block. The only real hope to defeat ASMs in the early days was ECM. As time went on, capability was added to SAMs to hit the ASMs.

But during that whole time, a battleship still retained its passive ability to resist damage (Armor), and continue to function when damaged. No ASMs were made to effectively deal with such a platform, as they were dismissed as obsolete while the world built throw-away 'warships' which were easy victims to a 'mission kill'.

The North Vietnamese HATED the one battleship which returned. They actually demanded that USS New Jersey be withdrawn as a condition to coming to the peace negotiations. That level of belligerency is exactly what the battleship is about. I'd have recommissioned the other three Iowas. If my enemy doesn�t like it, I'll do more of it.

The former Soviet Union had no idea what to do about the Iowas. They had high-speed torpedoes and ASMs to saturate the CVBG defenses with the idea that even if one hit the carrier, the carrier could no longer operate aircraft. They could not be assured that even a nuclear hit would create a mission kill on the battleships, as an airburst may well eliminate the electronics on the BB, but the 16" rifles could still fight with optics from 1941. Any large conventional warhead may due significant damage, but it couldn't ensure immobilizing all three 16" turrets. The Iowa's maneuverability also made them harder to hit with torpedo attacks, as they were not limited to maneuvering to the wind to launch their attacks via aircraft.

In spite of 1200nm range SSMs with nuclear warheads and a project for a 100nm ranged 12" sub-caliber projectile, politics of the brownshoe Navy decommissioned them another time (1500 men and the money to run a BB was 1/4 of the money to run a CVN, but by escorts and perceived capability the brownshoes saw each BB as a one to one threat to a CVN during a time of defense draw-downs). Once again, the battleship has lapsed, not due to its capability, but due to a lack of will of its operators to update it to meet current threats, politics, and a complete disregard for the unique capabilities it brings to the table.

Could you imagine the possibilities today�s fire control brings? Like MRSI (Multiple Round, Simultaneous Impact) with a 16" or even 12" projectile? I shudder to think of the absolute and immediate destruction that would cause.

The armor and massive rifles are the core of the BB, but as times have changed, the fit to adapt has been minimal at best. I'd be more than happy to serve on any BB today, were it active. Properly escorted, they are a massive middle finger of diplomatic influence. When you see one, if you are a friend, you are happy and safe- if you are an enemy - you cower and surrender, for you are about to die and there is nothing you can do to stop it.

Ask the Iraqis on that oil platform who surrendered to the spotting RPV because they knew what was coming next.

Strangely, while you can make the case that battleships have been eclipsed in the realm of pure naval combat, they showed themselves to have been an even more effective political tool late in their lives. I�d even support the idea that political showmanship was their primary intended purpose, and the destruction of an enemy�s battleships was secondary to how it looked to the world on paper.

And let�s remember, a CV takes escorts as well. CVs and BB should never be compared directly, as one cannot do the work of the other. But I'd hands down give up one CV (of the USN's 12!) to have 3-4 BBs operating with SAGs or ARGs.
(And yes, the three or four BBs to one CV is accurate by cost. No multi-million dollar aircraft to fuel, maintain, purchase smart weapons for, and pilots to train. One or two SAGs could easily be made for the escorts in one CVBG, and the other one or two BBs can fold into already existing ARGs)

For all the whiz-bang technology disciples out there, find me the Electronic Jamming Gear which can fool a 2700lb 16"/50 projectile from 24nm away. Or the missile system which can detect, track, launch, and intercept this massive projectile in flight.

V/r
CTIC(SW)

[Foeth]

I also think we should build more pyramids. Pyramids not only stood the test of time far better than the battleship, they are also heavily armoured---even against nuclear attacks---and are completely invulnerable against ECM attacks. Plus, people always stand in awe and wonder near a pyramid. I would happily trade in 2 carriers against one pyramid. It puts the fear of Ra in men... And don't forget. once one of its stones is cast away (by catapult of course) toward its enemy, no enemy missile can track it and no equipment can jam its course! There are many more rocks where that one came from. The pyramid truly is the queen of the desert! Ocean of sand... all honor Shai Hulud!

[Dave Wooley]

The first hit was when the powers that be decided to all but ignore aircraft as a threat (1920-1935).

Then there was a resurgence, as the newer battleships were designed with better AA and (some) deck armor, and these modern battleships did well in WWII when employed as part of a group.

Battleships were finally left behind when their AA weapons were obsolete - about the end of WWII, and no one cared to update them. No 3"/50s, no SAM systems.

Then they became relevant again in 1967. The Anti-ship missile was the new nasty toy on the block. The only real hope to defeat ASMs in the early days was ECM. As time went on, capability was added to SAMs to hit the ASMs.

But during that whole time, a battleship still retained its passive ability to resist damage (Armor), and continue to function when damaged. No ASMs were made to effectively deal with such a platform, as they were dismissed as obsolete while the world built throw-away 'warships' which were easy victims to a 'mission kill'.

The North Vietnamese HATED the one battleship which returned. They actually demanded that USS New Jersey be withdrawn as a condition to coming to the peace negotiations. That level of belligerency is exactly what the battleship is about. I'd have recommissioned the other three Iowas. If my enemy doesn�t like it, I'll do more of it.

The former Soviet Union had no idea what to do about the Iowas. They had high-speed torpedoes and ASMs to saturate the CVBG defenses with the idea that even if one hit the carrier, the carrier could no longer operate aircraft. They could not be assured that even a nuclear hit would create a mission kill on the battleships, as an airburst may well eliminate the electronics on the BB, but the 16" rifles could still fight with optics from 1941. Any large conventional warhead may due significant damage, but it couldn't ensure immobilizing all three 16" turrets. The Iowa's maneuverability also made them harder to hit with torpedo attacks, as they were not limited to maneuvering to the wind to launch their attacks via aircraft.

In spite of 1200nm range SSMs with nuclear warheads and a project for a 100nm ranged 12" sub-caliber projectile, politics of the brownshoe Navy decommissioned them another time (1500 men and the money to run a BB was 1/4 of the money to run a CVN, but by escorts and perceived capability the brownshoes saw each BB as a one to one threat to a CVN during a time of defense draw-downs). Once again, the battleship has lapsed, not due to its capability, but due to a lack of will of its operators to update it to meet current threats, politics, and a complete disregard for the unique capabilities it brings to the table.

Could you imagine the possibilities today�s fire control brings? Like MRSI (Multiple Round, Simultaneous Impact) with a 16" or even 12" projectile? I shudder to think of the absolute and immediate destruction that would cause.

The armor and massive rifles are the core of the BB, but as times have changed, the fit to adapt has been minimal at best. I'd be more than happy to serve on any BB today, were it active. Properly escorted, they are a massive middle finger of diplomatic influence. When you see one, if you are a friend, you are happy and safe- if you are an enemy - you cower and surrender, for you are about to die and there is nothing you can do to stop it.

Ask the Iraqis on that oil platform who surrendered to the spotting RPV because they knew what was coming next.

Strangely, while you can make the case that battleships have been eclipsed in the realm of pure naval combat, they showed themselves to have been an even more effective political tool late in their lives. I�d even support the idea that political showmanship was their primary intended purpose, and the destruction of an enemy�s battleships was secondary to how it looked to the world on paper.

And let�s remember, a CV takes escorts as well. CVs and BB should never be compared directly, as one cannot do the work of the other. But I'd hands down give up one CV (of the USN's 12!) to have 3-4 BBs operating with SAGs or ARGs.
(And yes, the three or four BBs to one CV is accurate by cost. No multi-million dollar aircraft to fuel, maintain, purchase smart weapons for, and pilots to train. One or two SAGs could easily be made for the escorts in one CVBG, and the other one or two BBs can fold into already existing ARGs)

For all the whiz-bang technology disciples out there, find me the Electronic Jamming Gear which can fool a 2700lb 16"/50 projectile from 24nm away. Or the missile system which can detect, track, launch, and intercept this massive projectile in flight.

V/r
CTIC(SW)

Unfortunately this is just wishful thinking.
Dave Wooley

[richter111]

"all honor Shai Hulud!"


Ok is that or is that not from DUNE????????

Ric

[Thomas E. Johnson]

The first hit was when the powers that be decided to all but ignore aircraft as a threat (1920-1935).

Then there was a resurgence, as the newer battleships were designed with better AA and (some) deck armor, and these modern battleships did well in WWII when employed as part of a group.

Battleships were finally left behind when their AA weapons were obsolete - about the end of WWII, and no one cared to update them. No 3"/50s, no SAM systems.

Then they became relevant again in 1967. The Anti-ship missile was the new nasty toy on the block. The only real hope to defeat ASMs in the early days was ECM. As time went on, capability was added to SAMs to hit the ASMs.

But during that whole time, a battleship still retained its passive ability to resist damage (Armor), and continue to function when damaged. No ASMs were made to effectively deal with such a platform, as they were dismissed as obsolete while the world built throw-away 'warships' which were easy victims to a 'mission kill'.

The North Vietnamese HATED the one battleship which returned. They actually demanded that USS New Jersey be withdrawn as a condition to coming to the peace negotiations. That level of belligerency is exactly what the battleship is about. I'd have recommissioned the other three Iowas. If my enemy doesn�t like it, I'll do more of it.

The former Soviet Union had no idea what to do about the Iowas. They had high-speed torpedoes and ASMs to saturate the CVBG defenses with the idea that even if one hit the carrier, the carrier could no longer operate aircraft. They could not be assured that even a nuclear hit would create a mission kill on the battleships, as an airburst may well eliminate the electronics on the BB, but the 16" rifles could still fight with optics from 1941. Any large conventional warhead may due significant damage, but it couldn't ensure immobilizing all three 16" turrets. The Iowa's maneuverability also made them harder to hit with torpedo attacks, as they were not limited to maneuvering to the wind to launch their attacks via aircraft.

In spite of 1200nm range SSMs with nuclear warheads and a project for a 100nm ranged 12" sub-caliber projectile, politics of the brownshoe Navy decommissioned them another time (1500 men and the money to run a BB was 1/4 of the money to run a CVN, but by escorts and perceived capability the brownshoes saw each BB as a one to one threat to a CVN during a time of defense draw-downs). Once again, the battleship has lapsed, not due to its capability, but due to a lack of will of its operators to update it to meet current threats, politics, and a complete disregard for the unique capabilities it brings to the table.

Could you imagine the possibilities today�s fire control brings? Like MRSI (Multiple Round, Simultaneous Impact) with a 16" or even 12" projectile? I shudder to think of the absolute and immediate destruction that would cause.

The armor and massive rifles are the core of the BB, but as times have changed, the fit to adapt has been minimal at best. I'd be more than happy to serve on any BB today, were it active. Properly escorted, they are a massive middle finger of diplomatic influence. When you see one, if you are a friend, you are happy and safe- if you are an enemy - you cower and surrender, for you are about to die and there is nothing you can do to stop it.

Ask the Iraqis on that oil platform who surrendered to the spotting RPV because they knew what was coming next.

Strangely, while you can make the case that battleships have been eclipsed in the realm of pure naval combat, they showed themselves to have been an even more effective political tool late in their lives. I�d even support the idea that political showmanship was their primary intended purpose, and the destruction of an enemy�s battleships was secondary to how it looked to the world on paper.

And let�s remember, a CV takes escorts as well. CVs and BB should never be compared directly, as one cannot do the work of the other. But I'd hands down give up one CV (of the USN's 12!) to have 3-4 BBs operating with SAGs or ARGs.
(And yes, the three or four BBs to one CV is accurate by cost. No multi-million dollar aircraft to fuel, maintain, purchase smart weapons for, and pilots to train. One or two SAGs could easily be made for the escorts in one CVBG, and the other one or two BBs can fold into already existing ARGs)

For all the whiz-bang technology disciples out there, find me the Electronic Jamming Gear which can fool a 2700lb 16"/50 projectile from 24nm away. Or the missile system which can detect, track, launch, and intercept this massive projectile in flight.

V/r
CTIC(SW)

Unfortunately this is just wishful thinking.
Dave Wooley

Makes perfect since to me.