Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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?
    24
    Yes (American)
    45.83%
    11
    No (American)
    25.00%
    6
    Yes (non-American)
    16.67%
    4
    No (non-American)
    12.50%
    3

    The poll is expired.

    "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
    - Thomas Jefferson

  • #2
    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.

    Comment


    • #3
      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

      Comment


      • #4
        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.

        Comment


        • #5
          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.
          In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

          Leibniz

          Comment


          • #6
            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

            Comment


            • #7
              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                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.

                Comment


                • #9
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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,, 06:12.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        "...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,, 12:50.
                        "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
                        - Thomas Jefferson

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X