Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How necessary were BB's in WWII?

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Pacfanweb View Post
    Yes, 4 Fletchers roughly equal AA as a BB, in 5"....but I don't think 4 Fletchers equal 1 BB in 40mm, though.

    But 1 NC can take more punishment than any 4 Fletchers ever thought about and still be fighting.
    We are discussing the battles of 1942. Neither ships had 40mm;)

    175 Fletchers were commissioned between 4 Jun 1942 and 22 Feb 44. How many Battleships could have been built during the same time? Without taking away from the other building that was going on at the same time?

    The Fletcher class stayed in Continous commission from 1942 to 2001.

    They proved they were worth more than all the Battleships through their longevity.


    Same thing with the Atlanta class. Can't take a hit. I've read the Atlanta's crew never felt the ship was all that safe. So it's great, as long as it doesn't get hit.

    The same number of Atlanta class CLs were sunk as US Battleships in the Pacific;)

    Yet the US built 11 cruisers of that class at the same time they stopped work on Battleships.

    It was an antiaircraft cruiser.

    At the same time that Dred credits NC with 7-14 enemy aircraft shot down the Juneau was credited with 18 on 26 Oct while protecting Enterprise.

    And I doubt you'll find anyone from Taffy 3 that wouldn't have LOVED to have a couple of BB's, even the old ones, on station with them.
    And there are many times that I would have loved to have been wrapped inside a M1 tank. Didn't happen

    The Men of taffy 3 could have used a BB but as history shows, they damn sure didn't need one.



    Your theory works great if you simply regard the ships and men as disposable.....if so, just spam DD's all war at the enemy, and sure, you'll end up winning.
    Its not a theory. Its history. There is one battle that battleships actually did battleship work in. They were used but were not needed. As shown by the actions of the US government. We quit building them right after Midway. Finished the two that were nearest completion canceled the rest and concentrated on CVs and DDs.

    We used what we had but saw no need to build any more.

    Comment


    • #32
      Actually, we were NOT discussing the battles of 1942, specifically, we were discussing the BB's necessity in WWII.

      By your reasoning, the same way the BB's weren't "needed", we might as well not build houses, airplanes and cars....because we still lived and thrived in teepees, and got around the world just fine in sailing ships and on horses.

      So just because a BB wasn't present and the battle was won anyway does not equate to "they weren't needed".

      To win the war? Yes, we probably would have won the war without them.

      To do a better, more efficient and quicker job? No, it would have taken longer and cost more lives.


      Now, for your specific points:

      Atlanta class cruisers: 2 were lost off Guadalcanal. I don't recall us losing any BB's outside of Pearl Harbor, and they weren't even ready for battle then...and only one of those was not raised. (Arizona) But we didn't lose any in a 'non-sneak-attack-when-we-were-not-yet-at-war' battle. SoDak got battered because of self-inflicted electrical problems, but was never in danger of being lost.

      I'd classify the Atlanta's as a "one trick pony". The BB's were not. The could do AA support, bombardment, refueling, and slug it out with other BB's, and live to tell the tale.
      And sure, the US built 11 Atlantas.....after they already had twice that number of BB's either built or almost completed. We also built 10 fast battleships. Wow, big difference....one more Atlanta built. We built ten new BB's, when we already had a dozen or so.

      Taffy 3......didn't NEED a BB? Again....I guess I don't NEED a house if I own a tent, but I'd survive bad weather a lot better and more safely if I had a house and not a tent. But in a pinch, I guess a tent would get the job done if a house wasn't available.....but nobody would choose a tent over a house.
      Last edited by Pacfanweb; 31 Jul 10,, 22:50.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Pacfanweb View Post




        Now, for your specific points:

        Atlanta class cruisers: 2 were lost off Guadalcanal. I don't recall us losing any BB's outside of Pearl Harbor, and they weren't even ready for battle then...and only one of those was not raised. (Arizona) But we didn't lose any in a 'non-sneak-attack-when-we-were-not-yet-at-war' battle. SoDak got battered because of self-inflicted electrical problems, but was never in danger of being lost.
        Doesn't mater how they were lost. 3 Battleships were lost at Pearl. 2 were never raised.

        2 Atlanta class were lost to torpedoes.


        I'd classify the Atlanta's as a "one trick pony". The BB's were not. The could do AA support, bombardment, refueling, and slug it out with other BB's, and live to tell the tale.
        And Atlanta's could not do bombardment and refueling why?

        They were originally designed as flotilla leaders so refueling was one of their duties. And their 5/38s were one of the most effective weapons used in NGB during WW2.

        And sure, the US built 11 Atlantas.....after they already had twice that number of BB's either built or almost completed. We also built 10 fast battleships. Wow, big difference....one more Atlanta built. We built ten new BB's, when we already had a dozen or so.
        Those Battleships were built during a time that Navies were rated by how many Battleships they had. None were laid down after Carriers became the top dog. The Atlanta's were.

        The battleships days were numbered after Taranto harbor. Over after Coral Sea/Midway
        Last edited by Gun Grape; 31 Jul 10,, 23:18.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Pacfanweb View Post

          But 1 NC can take more punishment than any 4 Fletchers ever thought about and still be fighting.
          I can build 16 Fletchers for the same amount of steel as the North Carolina.

          And yes those 16 Fletchers will take more damage, Do more damage and be more useful than 1 battleship. They will also have more 5/38s 40mm and 20mm than that 1 battleship.

          Comment


          • #35
            2 BB's lost at Pearl, never to return. Arizona and Oklahoma. Utah was not a Battleship at that time. Didn't even have any big guns.

            Oklahoma was raised, but not repaired....as much because she had reciprocating engines as anything else.

            So really only one BB was a total loss, and still....a sneak attack on a fleet that was at peace isn't the same as two warring fleets duking it out on the high seas, with everyone ready to fight.

            Your 16 Fletchers will certainly be able to cover more ground than any 1 BB, for sure. But let 5-6 of them take on an enemy BB and see what happens. You might sink the BB, or badly damage it. But at what cost? How many men will you lose?
            Again, if all you care about is the end result, by all means....crank out DD's and CV's and the heck with all other ships. Who needs 'em? Don't worry about taking on enemy heavy units...we have more men to replace those that are lost.

            How many convoys were not attacked in the Atlantic because an old BB was escorting it? I believe S&G declined to engage several times for this reason. BB's certainly were needed. Maybe not as much as some folks claim, but also most certainly not "not at all", as you are.

            Who was going to sink Kirishima? Washington and SoDak's escorting destroyers got themselves shot to hell before the BB's even got started. If that wasn't "BB doing BB work", as you described it, I don't know what is.

            Re: Shore Bombardment: Yes, DD's and the 5" in general most certainly did a lot of work in that area. But how many places were captured using those guns ONLY? And if no BB's were used, how much of the defenses would have been left intact? Heck, the Japanese managed to put up terrific fights even with BB's doing pre-invasion bombardments.......how bad would things have been on the ground had no heavy guns been employed?

            Hard to say exactly how bad, but I think it's safe to say there would have been less destruction on the islands, pre-landings.

            This argument is about like saying "why does an NFL team need offensive linemen?", because they are big and slow. You can feed 4 fast wide receivers for what one tackle eats/costs. Yeah, but it'll take all of them to stop one opposing defensive lineman (BB), much less the linebackers (CA's)
            Last edited by Pacfanweb; 01 Aug 10,, 00:54.

            Comment


            • #36
              Didn't Utah still carry battleship armor? In this case not having big guns wasn't the issue. In a "passive" sense Utah was a battleship that was sunk. If I'm seeing this wrong, please correct me, I'm here to learn.

              Comment


              • #37
                The question was Were they necessary. The answer was no.

                Then people started throwing all the other stuff in.

                They were not necessary. They ones we had did help but we would have still won the war if there were no battleships.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by RmK View Post
                  Didn't Utah still carry battleship armor? In this case not having big guns wasn't the issue. In a "passive" sense Utah was a battleship that was sunk. If I'm seeing this wrong, please correct me, I'm here to learn.
                  I thought she was a target hulk.....

                  Basically an old battleship stripped of anything useful and with extra armour bolted on top.

                  The in service battleships then used her for target practice.

                  -----------------

                  However getting back to the topic, as Gun Grape said, no, they were not neccessary in world war two.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Don't think anyone is disputing whether we win the war or not if there are no BB's.......but I don't see how anyone can dispute that the BB's made things easier.

                    But if you're going with the simple "could we have won without them" angle, you can say the same thing about the CA's, too. Take them out of the equation and we still win.

                    If you are going to say we would have won in exactly the same fashion, with less casualties and the same time frame without either....than I don't think so.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by StevoJH View Post
                      I thought she was a target hulk.....

                      Basically an old battleship stripped of anything useful and with extra armour bolted on top.

                      The in service battleships then used her for target practice.

                      -----------------

                      However getting back to the topic, as Gun Grape said, no, they were not neccessary in world war two.
                      Utah was not an unmanned "hulk". She was converted as a target TRAINING ship. Part of her fantail was painted to look like a carrier deck for dive bombers to PRACTICE aiming at. The carriers were the targets the Japanese were after and hit her with everything they had.

                      Also, I am not going to argue if Battleships were necessary or not. We had them, we used them and the final surrender was signed aboard one of them.

                      Whether they were ABSOLUTELY necessary or not is pure conjecture and I'm tired of brain storming hypothetical scenarios. The fact is that we used them and were very effective when used. Whether their usefulness was well planned or not can also be argued.

                      But not with me.
                      Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I'm not going to argue that they werent useful. Better to have something then to not have it. But the way i've been thinking is, would the money have been better spent on more carriers or cruisers?

                        The answer, possibly.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Balance

                          From what I gather on this topic I think the question is answered more on "balance", than "needed or not".

                          The more tools a commander has to use, the more options they have to employ.

                          The battle of Samar demonstrated that fact. Taffy 3 had DD and DD escorts going up against some major IJN units. Excellent improvised manuvers by Admiral Sprague, weather, what had to be considered incredible bravery by the DDs and DD escorts charging at a superior force knowing full well that more than likely their chances of survival was low at best, demonstrated at least to me having some BBs in the area would have been a needed element.

                          No argument War2 brought the Aircraft Carrier to the top of the pecking order for offensive firepower. And I know the Carriers at Samar were CVEs not the front line jobs that had more of everything; armor, guns, planes, and speed, but keep in mind that because of other navies having BBs in service we needed our own to match them, especially in a night action where planes in War2 were not very effective.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Hi guys, just a quick reply as time is short.

                            In reply to GG.

                            They were not necessary. They ones we had did help but we would have still won the war if there were no battleships.

                            *The older BB's would have been good for shore bombardment as they were employed after returning to the Pacific. They would have been questionable in battle against Japans or Germany's (or even the Italians) newest BB's at the time. They no doubt did their jobs in shore bombardment in as much as Kongo and Haruna no doubt rocked Henderson Field in a night bombardment during the Solomons Campaign and no USN cruiser beit CA, or CL had the firepower they did. Radar (questionable) speed (yes,) firepower negative.

                            The BB's no doubt provided excellent AA coverage to the CV's time and time again and claimed a good share of Japanese downed planes as well as bombarded Japanese home islands and infastructure. There is no doubt they were as important as any US cruiser beit CL or CA or DD when it came to surface engagements.

                            Is it possible that we would have won the Naval battles of WWII without them?

                            IMO, I suppose it was possible but at what cost and how long were we willing to fight? How many of our "prized" CV's could have been sent to the bottom and how fast could they have been replaced and how many more lives lost?

                            What in the USN inventory could have stood up to the Tirpitz, Yamato, Musashi, etc had they escaped the air attacks or if the weather didnt cooperate with the battle plans? Its quite obvious lesser gunned ships were not going to do this against enemy BB's, their only resort would have been torpedo strikes, by cruiser subs or with DD's and there is no saying that it would not have been a slaughter of men and ships outright.

                            The BB's were indeed needed wether you agree with that statement or not it makes no difference. Naval history and pure material facts of battle has shown they were needed just as much as any other ship in the fleet. The right tool for the right job. Japan and Germany were actively constructing battleships that no USN (CA,CL) cruiser or Destroyer could have engaged in one on one or even two on two. They would have been sunk in minutes and they may have damaged them too but at the cost of their lives and lost ground in the island campaigns.

                            IMO, We were both smart for building them when we did and lucky we chose to keep a few of them instead of scrapping them for they saw three more conflicts following WWII that helped give an upper edge to our fighting forces, helped them advance and helped save lives as well.

                            Even the Heavy Cruisers (and the CL's) time had come and past before the end of the BB's era. Much like the BB's time had come and past because of the CV's and airpower. None the less, they were and still are around for the future, If the US government wanted them gone that badly then they would have been scrapped outright and never even offered them a chance at hanging around as museums. The proof of this is by looking at how many capital ships, older BB's, CA's, CL's, SS, SSN, and yet we still have 8 BB's around as museums the majority of which are of the last three classes built with 4 of them being the last class built period. I wonder what they were thinking.:))
                            Last edited by Dreadnought; 02 Aug 10,, 19:33.
                            Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by dundonrl View Post
                              well, I'm sure that Admiral Sprague and Taffy III wish they had some battleships during their action during the Battle off Samar.. Japanese battleships Yamato, Nagato, Kongō, and Haruna; heavy cruisers Chōkai, Haguro, Kumano, Suzuya, Chikuma, Tone; light cruisers Yahagi, and Noshiro; and 11 Kagerō- and Asashio- class destroyers went up against Rear Admiral Clifton Sprague's Task Unit 77.4.3 ("Taffy 3") consisted of the Light carriers/escort carriers: Fanshaw Bay, St. Lo, White Plains, Kalinin Bay, Kitkun Bay, and Gambier Bay. Screening for Taffy 3 were the destroyers Hoel, Heermann and Johnston, and destroyer escorts Dennis, John C. Butler, Raymond, and Samuel B. Roberts.

                              only through the lack of situational awareness how valiantly the American's fought did they drive the Japanese off. If we would have had some BB's there, the situation would/could have been completely different..
                              What if the 6 escort carriers were fleet carriers? Instead of 150 planes, they launched 500 planes?
                              "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                                Is it possible that we would have won the Naval battles of WWII without them?

                                IMO, I suppose it was quite possible but at what cost? How many of our "prized" CV's could have been sent to the bottom and how fast could they have been replaced and how many more lives lost?
                                Enemy battleships never came close to our CVs. They were bombed to hell by carrier planes before they got close.

                                Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                                What in the USN inventory could have stood up to the Tirpitz, Yamato, Musashi, etc had they escaped the air attacks or if the weather didnt cooperate with the battle plans? Its quite obvious lesser gunned ships were not going to do this, their only resort would have been torpedo strikes by subs or with DD's and there is no saying that it would not have been a slaughter of men and ships.
                                Why stand up to them if we can bomb them again and again? They will need to escape the bombings first before we have to worry about standing up to them. Even if they did somehow escape air attack, could they have chased down our fleet carriers?

                                Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                                The BB's were indeed needed wether you agree with that statement or not it makes no difference. Naval history has shown were needed just as much as any other ship in the fleet. The right tool for the right job.;)

                                I dont have the time to chase these arguments around, this is why I prefered to answer in kind one at a time.
                                They were helpful to have, just like any other tools in the bag. But I don't think they were necessary.

                                Let's flip the question around. What if we had only battleships and no carriers?
                                "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X