View Poll Results: Should the U.S. maintain at least one battleship as a symbol of naval superiority?

Voters
24. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes (American)

    11 45.83%
  • No (American)

    6 25.00%
  • Yes (non-American)

    4 16.67%
  • No (non-American)

    3 12.50%
Page 1 of 7 1234567 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 94

Thread: The United States should retain some battleships as a symbol of out naval superiority

  1. #1
    Military Professional ExNavyAmerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Mar 07
    Location
    Ningbo, China
    Posts
    803

    The United States should retain some battleships as a symbol of out naval superiority

    The United States should retain at least one battleship because no other nations (as far as I know) maintain any battleships; the United States currently maintains 2, the Missouri and the Iowa. I myself never served on a battleship (I served mainly on AEGIS ships), and so I don't know battleships personally, but I do know that they are obsolete. At least compared to the components of the American battle group (i.e. AEGIS cruisers and destroyers, a carrier, subs, and auxiliary ships).

    What do you thin? Should we maintain at least one battleship as a symbol of naval superiority?
    "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
    - Thomas Jefferson

  2. #2
    Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 05
    Location
    Oak Hill, VA
    Posts
    577
    Quote Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican View Post
    What do you thin? Should we maintain at least one battleship as a symbol of naval superiority?
    We have plenty of symbols of our naval superiority - carriers, AEGIS warships, nuclear submarines, amphibious ships.

    We have more warship tonnage than the rest of the world combined.

    We don't need to keep floating museums to show the world how tough we are.

  3. #3
    Military Professional ExNavyAmerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Mar 07
    Location
    Ningbo, China
    Posts
    803
    Point conceded smitty, but battleships were the symbol of naval superiority between 1650 and 1945, and we shouldn't throw away the symbol. AEGIS warships, and carriers are not such symbols.
    "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
    - Thomas Jefferson

  4. #4
    Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 05
    Location
    Oak Hill, VA
    Posts
    577
    Quote Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican View Post
    Point conceded smitty, but battleships were the symbol of naval superiority between 1650 and 1945, and we shouldn't throw away the symbol. AEGIS warships, and carriers are not such symbols.
    Carriers have been the symbol of naval superiority from 1941 on.

  5. #5
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Te Whanganui a-Tara, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,870
    The two times I've been in Gosport I've been well pleased to cross over and visit HMS Victory and the remains of the Mary Rose. It's well worth keeping at least one Battleship for future generations.

  6. #6
    Military Professional ExNavyAmerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Mar 07
    Location
    Ningbo, China
    Posts
    803
    Quote Originally Posted by B.Smitty View Post
    Carriers have been the symbol of naval superiority from 1941 on.
    I agree, the carrier is a symbol, but so is the battleship. I must disagree, however, as to your given date of 1941 as the date carriers were proven. The world had conflicting ideas, but the Battleship was still accepted as the symbol of naval power. Even after Pearl Harbor, and Doolitle's raid, battleships were considered to be fundamental to naval power. The Japanese navy was split squarely down the middle with that debate. It wasn't until the United States navy invaded all the way across the Pacific to Japan that the carrier was proved to be the decisive warships. Despite this Admiral Nimitz, CICPAC flew his flag from the Missouri because the battleship was still a powerful symbol of naval power. Even to day a battleship can still pack a heavy punch with their massive guns, and cruise missiles, as well as be a powerful symbol. They are a unnecessary warship because of AEGIS ships, and carriers, but they're still symbols. They have been for 350 years. One thing that proves they're not totally obsolete is the fact that we used them in the Persian Gulf War.
    "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
    - Thomas Jefferson

  7. #7
    Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 05
    Location
    Oak Hill, VA
    Posts
    577
    Quote Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican View Post
    They have been for 350 years. One thing that proves they're not totally obsolete is the fact that we used them in the Persian Gulf War.
    Their mpact on ODS was insignificant. The course of the war did not change because of them. Every target they hit would've been hit by airpower had they not been around.

    We can't afford to keep ships around just because they used to be symbols of power 60+ years ago.

  8. #8
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,122
    Quote Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican View Post

    What do you thin? Should we maintain at least one battleship as a symbol of naval superiority?
    I voted no. They would have no use in the fleet and would only serve as a burden to the Navy.

    We have BBs kept as Symbols. The NC, Alabama, Texas, Mass and the 2 Iowas.

    I think they are well represented.
    Human Scum. Proud Never Trumper

  9. #9
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,122
    Quote Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican View Post
    Despite this Admiral Nimitz, CICPAC flew his flag from the Missouri because the battleship was still a powerful symbol of naval power.

    Actually his flagship was South Dakota. The surrender doc was signed on Missouri. That was Halseys flagship (3d fleet). Some have said that Missouri was chosen because it was the namesake of the Presidents home state.

    And Nimitz flew into Tokio bay on a PB2Y.

    The US would not hazzard bringing carriers into the bay.
    Human Scum. Proud Never Trumper

  10. #10
    Military Professional ExNavyAmerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Mar 07
    Location
    Ningbo, China
    Posts
    803
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post
    Actually his flagship was South Dakota. The surrender doc was signed on Missouri. That was Halseys flagship (3d fleet). Some have said that Missouri was chosen because it was the namesake of the Presidents home state.

    And Nimitz flew into Tokio bay on a PB2Y.

    The US would not hazzard bringing carriers into the bay.
    No, Nimitz's flagship was indeed the Missouri, and Halsey's flagship was the carrier Enterprise. Anyway, even if it was the South Dakota, it would still be a battleship, and my point would still be valid.

    Nimitz flew in because they were afraid there would be a kamikaze attack on the Missouri. As a matter of fact, there nearly was, but the crown prince stopped it just in time. They wanted to make sure it was safe, so Nimitz came in later.
    "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
    - Thomas Jefferson

  11. #11
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,122
    Quote Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican View Post
    No, Nimitz's flagship was indeed the Missouri, and Halsey's flagship was the carrier Enterprise. Anyway, even if it was the South Dakota, it would still be a battleship, and my point would still be valid.

    Nimitz flew in because they were afraid there would be a kamikaze attack on the Missouri. As a matter of fact, there nearly was, but the crown prince stopped it just in time. They wanted to make sure it was safe, so Nimitz came in later.
    You are mistaken.
    JAPAN CAPITULATES--FAdm. Nimitz joins the Fleet in Tokyo Bay

    On 29 August 1945, Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet, and Pacific Ocean Areas, flew up to Tokyo Bay from the Marianas. He had been appointed United States' Representative for the formal Japanese surrender ceremonies, which took place on USS Missouri (BB-63) on 2 September. Upon arrival, Nimitz was greeted by the Third Fleet Commander, Admiral William F. Halsey. He made USS South Dakota (BB-57) his flagship during his stay in the area.
    Halseys flagship was Missouri. She was the 3d fleet flagship. Enterprise was his flagship earlier in the war. When he was CTF-16 Commander.

    Fleet Admiral Halsey

    In October l942 he was made Commander South Pacific Forces and South Pacific Area. With the rank of Admiral, and for the next 18 months he was in command of that area during the offensive operations of the U. S. Forces. In June 1944 he assumed command of the Third Fleet, and was designated Commander Western Pacific Task Forces. As such, he operated successfully against the Japanese in the Palaies, Philippines, Formosa, Okinawa and South China Sea. Subsequent to the Okinawa campaign in July 1945, his forces struck at Tokyo and the Japanese mainland. The last attack of his forces was on 13 August 1945. Admiral Halsey's flag was flying on USS Missouri on 2 September in Tokyo Bay when the formal Japanese surrender was signed onboard.

    Nimitz flew in because he was in the Marianas when appointed to lead the US delegation. Not because of some possible attack on the Mo. They got there on the same day. Missouri was already in japanese home waters.

    And your point is that we should maintain an obsolete ship in the Navy as a symbol of naval superiority?
    Last edited by Gun Grape; 05 Mar 07, at 06:12.
    Human Scum. Proud Never Trumper

  12. #12
    Military Professional ExNavyAmerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Mar 07
    Location
    Ningbo, China
    Posts
    803
    "...the surrender took place on his flagship, the U.S.S. Missouri, and was attended by former Japanese prisoner General Wainwright, General Macarthur, Admiral Halsey, and many other senior American commanders; as well as Japanese government officials. The surrender took place on August 15, 1945, and is known as VJ-Day; at this point the war had been going on for a few months shy of 4 years (less than a month shy of 6 years in Europe). Nimitz thought the Missouri was the best choice for the surrendering ceremony, and he (Nimitz) was said to have chosen the Missouri as his flagship because it was a sign of two side overcoming their differences (i.e.the civil war)..."

    As far as keeping a small number of battleships in the fleet as a symbol; I think it’s good to have a symbol, and to respect tradition: I’m conservative. Plus, we can afford it.
    Last edited by ExNavyAmerican; 05 Mar 07, at 12:50.
    "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
    - Thomas Jefferson

  13. #13
    Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 05
    Location
    Oak Hill, VA
    Posts
    577
    Quote Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican View Post
    [I]Plus, we can afford it.
    No, the USN (along with the rest of the services) is having trouble funding its existing priorities.

    What capabilities do you propose we cut?

  14. #14
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728
    Flagships for both Admirals named above changed numerous times. You will have to isolate it to a particular campaign.

    EX. Doolittle Raid-Admiral Halsey Flagship CV Enterprise
    EX. Leyte Gulf Admiral Halsey Flagship BB New Jersey.

    They change often pending the campaign they undertake.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  15. #15
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728
    Quote Originally Posted by B.Smitty View Post
    Their mpact on ODS was insignificant. The course of the war did not change because of them. Every target they hit would've been hit by airpower had they not been around.

    We can't afford to keep ships around just because they used to be symbols of power 60+ years ago.
    For what needed to be proven..the battleship battlesgroup concept was justified. Missouri launched 28 Tomahawk missles if Im not mistaken proving once again that they had not lost their value even after some 50 years of service to the USN. They are still one of the steadiest platforms ever created to operate from.

    The only reason why they have not been justified outright is because we have not had to take any beachead or amphibious landing in many many years. Otherwise in a hostile beachead enviroment the leathernecks would be screaming for them.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. This is what exactly happened on 9/11
    By Leader in forum Science & Technology
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 06 Nov 08,, 07:46
  2. Articles and links for the Military Professional
    By Officer of Engineers in forum The Staff College
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 20 Nov 06,, 16:28
  3. US-India Nuclear Deal Clears House
    By Bane in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 24 Aug 06,, 20:57
  4. PLAN Analysis
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12 Jun 06,, 20:05

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •