How necessary were BB's in WWII?

[Dreadnought]

Sorry for the bad link, this one will work though.:)

http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgr...e_Analysis.pdf

[shadow01]

I may be wrong , but I remember reading that during the Vietnam War that the North refused to return to the negotiation table until the BB New Jersey was removed.

If that is a true account, then that sends a "powerful" statement about the value of a BB.

[Pacfanweb]

I believe that is true about the Communists stipulating that the New Jersey had to be withdrawn from the conflict before they would return to the peace talks. I've read that in several books.

A couple small things to add to what Dundonrl wrote: Yes, the Jersey fired more 5" rounds....then again, she has double the number of 5" guns, too, and they can fire faster.

The second thing is, IIRC, that number of rounds fired in Vietnam by the 16's is a record. So SOMEONE was calling for them.

That one quote at the top of his post is echoed in a book I have...it said that the Communists were known to go inactive or outright evacuate anywhere within range of Jersey's guns when she was in the area.

[Dreadnought]

" There is no weapon system in the world that comes even close to the visible symbol of enormous power represented by the battleship." -- Retired Gen. P.X. Kelly, USMC.;)

I believe that is true about the Communists stipulating that the New Jersey had to be withdrawn from the conflict before they would return to the peace talks. I've read that in several books.

*The thousands of leaflets dropped from KC-130's on the jungles of Vietnam within range of New Jerseys guns did help a bit with a psycological aspect.;)

[gunnut]

I still think the fact that the peace treaty was signed on the Missouri, rather than a carrier, which would have a lot more room for spectators and participants, showed just how important battleships were to the people in that time.

I believe there were 3 reasons for that.

1. The carriers were held outside the confined waters of Tokyo Bay. Just in case if something went wrong...

2. It was to intimidate the Japanese by holding the ceremony under the guns of a battleship. It's symbolic as well as psychological.

3. The carrier's flattop just didn't have the proper appearance of a warship. Cruisers were too small. America's largest battleship was the natural choice.

[Stitch]

I believe there were 3 reasons for that.

1. The carriers were held outside the confined waters of Tokyo Bay. Just in case if something went wrong...

I've heard about this one before; in fact, there's another thread in here somewhere that talks about it.

There were some suspicions among the occupying Allied forces that some die-hard Japanese militarists might make a suicide attack on the naval forces in Tokyo Bay (in particular the surrender ceremony), so forces were held in reserve just outside the Bay "just in case". I believe they also had quite a few fighters patrolling the skies above Tokyo "just in case".

[gunnut]

I've heard about this one before; in fact, there's another thread in here somewhere that talks about it.

There were some suspicions among the occupying Allied forces that some die-hard Japanese militarists might make a suicide attack on the naval forces in Tokyo Bay (in particular the surrender ceremony), so forces were held in reserve just outside the Bay "just in case". I believe they also had quite a few fighters patrolling the skies above Tokyo "just in case".

You mean like this? :))

[Stitch]

Um, yeah, like that . . . . .

[Dreadnought]

Thats alot of airpower right there.:))

Notice Mo's guns are at max elevation. Posture of peace till she leaves port and then lowered to reduce the stress on the hydraulics and hardware when at sea.;)

A beautiful pic none the less.:))

[gunnut]

Thats alot of airpower right there.:))

Notice Mo's guns are at max elevation. Posture of peace till she leaves port and then lowered to reduce the stress on the hydraulics and hardware when at sea.;)

A beautiful pic none the less.:))

I think I jacked that picture from Navsource. That was the day when the surrender ceremony was held, possibly right after. As a show of force, the USN flew a few hundred fighters over Tokyo Bay, and the USAAF flew a few hundred B-29s over Tokyo.

At least Japan was spared a full scale land invasion. The A-bombs saved millions of lives.

edit: yep...here it is: http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/63i.htm

[Dreadnought]

I think I jacked that picture from Navsource. That was the day when the surrender ceremony was held, possibly right after. As a show of force, the USN flew a few hundred fighters over Tokyo Bay, and the USAAF flew a few hundred B-29s over Tokyo.

At least Japan was spared a full scale land invasion. The A-bombs saved millions of lives.

edit: yep...here it is: Battleship Photo Index BB-63 USS MISSOURI

*Gun, if I had to guess a timeframe of that picture it was immediately after the signing. From what I have read they were ordered a slow flyover as soon as the Ceremonies came to a close. Not quite sure if the delagates were still aboard but it had to be very close. Notice the small boats all tied up beside her. These were from all ships in the harbor at that time. The Japanese Delegation was brought aboard by USN destroyer (USS Nicholas DD449) and the the DD was immediately ordered to clear Missouri once they were aboard. Maybe even for picture purposes I suppose.

[bonehead]

I believe there were 3 reasons for that.

1. The carriers were held outside the confined waters of Tokyo Bay. Just in case if something went wrong...

2. It was to intimidate the Japanese by holding the ceremony under the guns of a battleship. It's symbolic as well as psychological.

3. The carrier's flattop just didn't have the proper appearance of a warship. Cruisers were too small. America's largest battleship was the natural choice.

That kind of says it right there doesn't it. A Battleship was still needed for intimidation, symbolism, and was one of the few ships we had that we could intentionally put in harms way and reasonable expect the ship to return. in other words "Do not send a kid to do a mans job" A carrier of that time did not have the psychological pull as a battleship. Even at the end of the war, and several great carrier battles, the leaders of that time thought a carrier was too pretty to be sent into a place where something may go wrong and they might have to slug it out at close range.

[RustyBattleship]

It is true that the planes were scheduled to do their fly over when the ceremony ended. Jerry Dunphy (a TV newscaster here in L.A.) was in one of those planes at the time.

They flew the exact same number of planes that the Japanese used to bomb Pearl Harbor. (I've mentioned this in another post on this board).

The photo on the website mentioned above does look like the Missouri. But the photo posted on this board I think may be the Iowa with all turrets in line and all guns elevated at the same angle. Missouri's Turret II was turned slightly to starboard to allow room for all the delegates and media.

Unfortunately the resolution is not fine enough to make out a hull number or the bullwark on the 08 level secondary con (stiffeners were OUTSIDE on the Iowa - still are).

On Missouri, to make room for everybody, a mushroom ventilator was removed from the deck and had a flat steel plate bolted in place. I believe tha ammo replenishment outrigger on the right side of Turret II was used to hoist the vent off and later put it back on. I think the deck socket for the closest cargo handling davit would have been too far aft to remove and replace the vent.

Anyway, whether the photos are misslabled or not, I'm going to print that photo and give it to a drinking buddy of mine at the VFW post who was on the Iowa at that time. I'll just plop it down on the bar in front of him and ask, "You remember this day by any chance?"

[Dreadnought]

This is the caption that is attached to the pic.

Surrender of Japan, 2 September 1945. Navy carrier planes fly in formation over the U.S. and British fleets in Tokyo Bay during surrender ceremonies. Missouri (BB-63), where the ceremonies took place, is at left. Detroit (CL-8) is in the right distance. Aircraft include TBM, F6F, SB2C and F4U types.

Its from the DOD Collection so hopefully they labeled it correctly.;)

Link to the photo's

Battleship Photo Index BB-63 USS MISSOURI

Link to DD Nicholas carrying the Japanese and French Delegation out to Missouri.

Destroyer Photo Index DD-449 / DDE-449 USS NICHOLAS

DD Nicholas enroute to Missouri with a Japanese DD in the background.

[gunnut]

That kind of says it right there doesn't it. A Battleship was still needed for intimidation, symbolism, and was one of the few ships we had that we could intentionally put in harms way and reasonable expect the ship to return. in other words "Do not send a kid to do a mans job" A carrier of that time did not have the psychological pull as a battleship. Even at the end of the war, and several great carrier battles, the leaders of that time thought a carrier was too pretty to be sent into a place where something may go wrong and they might have to slug it out at close range.

A 6'6" martial artist with 260 lb of muscle and armed with a pair of escrima sticks is intimidating, but virtually useless on the battle field. Why? Range is too short. I'll put him down with the full fury of my 135 lb weakling frame and a $70 Mosin rifle from 300 yards away. There was a reason knights were retired from warfare.