Naval Education

[shadowhooch]

It's common knowledge and smart strategy not to put all of your eggs in one basket. In AAM, a swarm can usually beat a heavy because they get more shots off and you have to kill 3 units instead of one.

So I'm trying to understand the WWII logic of creating these beast Battleships like the Yamamoto.
Wouldn't it be smarter to create 3 smaller ships - each with a Big Gun than 1 ship with 3 Big Guns?

Smaller ships would be harder to hit.
They would probably be faster.
They could manuever to more than one location.
And if one was crippled, you'd still have 2 mobile guns.

Why create a huge ship like that? What are the advantages? Is it really that much harder to sink? Does it save a ton on fuel and personnell?
It's seems like your putting too much of your resources and eggs in one basket.

Just looking to be eductated and figured there would be enough Naval/History buffs here to help me out.

[Joisey]

Go ahead. Put a turret with 3 18 inch guns on a cruiser hull and try to fire them and see what happens. HINT: Keep your life jacket handy.

[polish_horsy]

there is not much cover out at sea. big difference between the land game and naval. try a blank map with no cover between 5 shermans and 3 Panther D tanks.

you know maybe the 18-inch gun would just make the Cruiser roll over and pop right-side back up?

[Pasalades]

Joisey is right about hullsize and guns. It's the same reason you can't have BT-7s running around with 128mm guns. Big guns need big hulls.

During the first and second world wars there were a significant number of critics of large battleship plans. For the same tonnage as a battleship, dozens upon dozens of corvettes, submarines or torpedo boats could be made. Mind you, the armor of a battleship was such that during the first world at least, unless something rather unlucky happened, it would take a concerted attack to sink or disable it. Smaller calibers of guns simply could not do any appreciable damage to the beasts, and torpedoes were ridiculously unreliable. However technology was quickly to change over the course of a generation.

This came to a focal point during World War Two when threats from aircraft and numerour smaller craft made it much easier to loacte, isolate and destroy these large ships. The piecemeal dismantling of Germany's capital ships was made possible by these amazing leaps in technology. During the invasion of Norway and the planning for Operation Sea-Lion (which never came to be), it became apparent that the German naval rearmament plan, codenammed 'Z' never fully apprehended the neccesity of smaller coastal and patrol vessels, which is the unsung backbone of the contemporary navy. Hundreds of these smaller ships would have facilitated naval invasions and thwarted Allied operations of the same kind. However, even in the First World War, many questioned the worth of such an expensive fleet, both in creation and maintenance, when it hardly went out to sea. This dockside torpor was so bad as to incite a mutiny in Kiel before the war was out.

However, a dreadnought or battleship was also a staus symbol of industrial might. This was an important factor to the dreadnought race that ensued in the days approaching the first world war. For the United States during the second world war, this economic difficulty was irrelevant as the superpower proved capable of mustering the resources to build a battleship from keel up in about six weeks.

In the end the aircraft carrier's ability to project power of hundreds rather than dozens of miles proved the twilight of the battleship. I can't comment on the efficacy of BBs in WaS, that will remain to be seen.

Unfortunately I'm killing time in German class so perhaps I can add more weight to this later.

[shousa]

Go ahead. Put a turret with 3 18 inch guns on a cruiser hull and try to fire them and see what happens. HINT: Keep your life jacket handy.

Classic. Also, consider the effort it took the Allies to hunt down and sink the Bismarck, which was not even the best of the WW2 battleships. Battleships had some serious advantages over loghter ships. Battleshops could take quite a few hits before losing any effectiveness, could fight effectively at night and in poor weather that would ground a carrier's flight group, had a vast range advantage over cruisers and destroyers, and carried guns large enough to obliterate some of such smaller ships with a snigle hit. Multiple smaller ships would not be able to carry enough armor to ignore the guns of destroyers and light cruisers, or heavy enough guns to outrange anything but an airstrike and penetrate almost any armor. Yes, three cruisers could be in three different places, but if the enemy has a battleship you need all three of those cruisers working together closely to have any chance against the battleship. You can't be in three places at once, because if the battleship shows up in any one of those three places you lose a cruiser and he loses nothing. Avoiding the battleship would be difficult since most carried search radar and scout planes. As for speed, battleships were pushing 30 to 35 knots top speed at the end of the war, while the fastest destroyers I know of were only 10 knots faster. The smaller size of destroyers made them a little harder to hit, but with advanced optics and radar-assited targeting, mid-WW2 battleships could land hits on these 'small' targets, even at night. All of the seemingly antural assumptions you've made were negated by the techniology of the time.


edit: Pasaldes brings up important points as well. Remember, though, that battleships weren't just status symbols and scary beat-sticks. There were ample opportunities for aggressive (and theoretically somewhat risky) use of available battleships could have seriously altered the events of the war. Just because Yamamoto chose to keep his battleships in reserve as Midway rather than press the wounded US fleet, for example, doesn't mean the battleships couldn't have done anything useful anymore becase air power and torpedoes were so nasty.

[shadowhooch]

Wow, great stuff guys. Thanks very much. I now have a much better understanding.

[Colonel_Coo]

Rockets, Airplanes, Radar and self propelled Torpedo all converged to make the BB an obsolete platform.

With armorment expanded, the orignal Dreadnaught really could "Sail forth and Dread Naught!". Only other LARGE caliber guns could hope to penetrate the armorment of the BB. To be sure, the light Battle-Cruser was cheaper, but was vunerable to weaker Cruisers and Destroyers.

The range of the Battleship guns was measured in MILES. With heavy armor pierces or High Explosive rounds, enemy lighter vessels would be destroyed prior to getting in gun range with their puny 3" and 5" guns.

Battleships could also set off the coast of a city and deliver merciless blows to force capitulation.

As naval technology advanced (demostration of aircraft launched by a ship and then recovered by a ship), the platform was still insufficient to carry a weapon heavy enough to penetrate a BB's armor. WWI showed that Submarines could get close enough to hit a BB with a torpedo. Small fast destroyers could do the same if they could survive and get in close.

So BB's wouldn't act alone. Scout planes and Destroyer excorts would screen enemy light threats, with Cruisers offering plenty of punch against these advesaries. But the BB was KING. Its armorment and weapontry could not be matched.

Unfortunetly, the Aircaft and the Carrier advanced to allow larger planes with bigger bombs to go to war.

More later,

[MarcusAurelius]

Armored vehicles on land also faced physical and logistical limitations that ships at sea didn't.

At more than 50 tons, The Tiger I was too heavy for most bridges. The tanks's weight put severe stress on the suspension, whose complexity made maintenance difficult — making it prone to breakdowns. Plus, the Tiger was too large to be transported by rail without removing the outer row of wheels.

Warship designers don't have to worry about such issues. A battleship has no need for a suspension system. Its movement is limited only by its draft. This helps eliminate the speed gap at sea. So while the Tiger could be easily outmanuevered by faster medium tanks, most WWII battleships could maintain fleet speeds of 30 knots or more.

[grizzlybear]

You want to understand world war 2 logic of big turreted battleships.it started before world war 1 .battleships where a nations big stick bigger the ship more armored meant i am the baddest mother on the block.imperial germany and england plunged themselves into a naval arms race .germany wanted to have a fleet to show they where a power to be recond with while england took it as a threat to her naval supremacy.and after world war 1 major powers us,england france and italy and japan signed naval arms reduction treaties .which gave japan the short end of the stick.feeling slighted japan having to scrap a lot of her battleships under consruction or transform them into aircraft carriers(akagi and kaga where to have entialy been battleships.).It's common knowledge and smart strategy not to put all of your eggs in one basket. In AAM, a swarm can usually beat a heavy because they get more shots off and you have to kill 3 units instead of one.

So I'm trying to understand the WWII logic of creating these beast Battleships like the Yamamoto.
Wouldn't it be smarter to create 3 smaller ships - each with a Big Gun than 1 ship with 3 Big Guns?

Smaller ships would be harder to hit.
They would probably be faster.
They could manuever to more than one location.
And if one was crippled, you'd still have 2 mobile guns.

Why create a huge ship like that? What are the advantages? Is it really that much harder to sink? Does it save a ton on fuel and personnell?
It's seems like your putting too much of your resources and eggs in one basket.

Just looking to be eductated and figured there would be enough Naval/History buffs here to help me out.

[maciej12]

I was watching Dogfights on the History channel the other night and they were saying how the H.M.S. Hood had such light armor to be a fast ship. The Bismark of course sank the Hood. The reason being, the Hood had only 3 inches of armor on its top deck. The Bismarks shell went right through it and blew up the powder room. The Bismark however, took over 400 hits from British guns and torpedos during the fight. it was still afloat long enough for the crew to set charges to scuttle it and have 1,400 of its crew saved.

The Hood lost all but three sailors.

[Surfer_Sam]

Go ahead. Put a turret with 3 18 inch guns on a cruiser hull and try to fire them and see what happens. HINT: Keep your life jacket handy.



I just imagined a small destroyer with a huge 20 in gun on it. When it fire, it would roll all the way over:D

[TheCygnysGuardian]

Hey Shadow, I think you typed too many "am"s... ;)

[Lynx7725]

I was watching Dogfights on the History channel the other night and they were saying how the H.M.S. Hood had such light armor to be a fast ship. The Bismark of course sank the Hood. The reason being, the Hood had only 3 inches of armor on its top deck. The Bismarks shell went right through it and blew up the powder room. The Bismark however, took over 400 hits from British guns and torpedos during the fight. it was still afloat long enough for the crew to set charges to scuttle it and have 1,400 of its crew saved.

The Hood lost all but three sailors.
Uhm, nobody really knows why the Hood blew up the way it did; the most popular theory being what you cited. That there were only 3 survivors didn't really help explain things.

BTW shadowhooch? The BB is called Yamato. The Admiral is called Yamamoto. The names are different.

Do note, a DD hull is vulnerable to small artillery such as 5" or 6" guns, but a BB can quite literally ignore a lot of these -- it has sufficient armour and mass to sustain a punishment. Where a DD would sink under a rapid barrage of fire from say, an Atlanta CL (with its large number of 5" guns), the BB would take some damage and then smack the CL out of the water.

MarcusAurelius: Uhm, I know of only a handful of BB classes that can hit 30 knots, max. Not many can maintain that high speed, especially WWI vintage BBs. WWII BB classes tend to have high speeds comparatively, but most aren't capable of sustained 30 knots.

[mikoyan]

Just look up the Yamato and how much it took to sink her and that will answer your question. If I remember, she took alot of punishment before she finally sank. Better yet, look up the Battle of Leyte Gulf for a testimony to your theory of the swarm vs. Battleship. The only reason the swarm won was because the Battleship lost it's nerves. If the Captain of the Battleship had realized what he was up against, he wouldn't have been using AP rounds against light ships and MacArthur's return might have been delayed a bit.

[Lynx7725]

Better yet, look up the Battle of Leyte Gulf for a testimony to your theory of the swarm vs. Battleship. The only reason the swarm won was because the Battleship lost it's nerves. If the Captain of the Battleship had realized what he was up against, he wouldn't have been using AP rounds against light ships and MacArthur's return might have been delayed a bit.
I assume you are talking about Samar. This was IJN BBs vs. Escort Carrier -- very inspiring, but hardly a swarm fight.

The actual Samar fight was against Taffy-3, which comprised 6 CVE, 4 DD and 3 DEs, not the whole task force (which is considerably larger). So it was something like 13 USN ships vs. 4 IJN BBs, 5 CA, 1 CL, and 11 DDs (the numbers of the IJN fleet is a bit hazy too, but it's fairly consistently larger than the USN force engaged).

And there's really nothing about the IJN Admiral losing his nerve. The USN force did fight very bravely and inflicted damage beyond what you might expect from this lopsided fight, and with his forces scattered and knowing at that point that the main USN fleet wasn't under his gun (and hence capable of massing enough firepower to sink his remaining ships), the decision to withdraw is reasonable.

In this position, you have to balance the immediate gains (pushing through and disrupting McArthur's operations) vs. the probable loss (of all the ships involved; USN naval strength at that point was that the IJN force might have done considerable damage but was almost certainly not going home). Conserving what remains of the IJN's fleet for home defense, in waters they are familiar with and where their superior torpedoes can be decisive, makes sense.

Remember, a Captain has to fight a battle, an Admiral has to fight the war. There's little point in winning a battle if the losses incurred would have lost you the war.

The closest swarm fight I can think of offhand in the PTO would probably be Battle of Tassafaronga, where 8 IJN DDs tangled with 4 USN CAs, 1 CLs and 4 DDs. It's not really a real "BB vs. Swarm", but trading 1 CA sunk, 3 CAs damaged for 1 DD sunk is good odds.

EDIT: And it was much the same at Midway; Yamamoto could have sent his BB in to bombard Midway -- and would probably have gotten away with it too! -- but the risks is that there is an unknown number of USN CVs out there, and the inevitable reinforcements from Pearl Harbour. These can possibly catch and sink the task group, ships which may be needed for an eventual offensive or defensive elsewhere. Considering that taking and holding Midway wasn't really the point of the operation made it hard to justify commiting the surface task force into the battle.

[mikoyan]

The Japanese Admiral had the group in his sites and was pulverizing him. The main US Fleet was off chasing ghosts.

[Texas_Archer]

I believe that the only successful design that put big guns on a smaller hull was the German "Pocket Battleships" of World War 2. Six 11'' Guns on a steady hull weighing in at only about 11-14000 tons(Depends on the source.)
A great set of ships, perfect for their commerce raiding duties.

[dracos42]

Larger ships have some advantages in the open ocean. They can maintain their speed easier in heavy seas. Larger ships are usually more stable gun platforms. Also, the larger ship is usually the taller ship, meaning rangefinders and radars can be higher up and have a greater range. Not as important once radar came along, but still an advantage.

Battleships were part of a combined arms force. It is not a matter of a battleship versus its equivalent tonnage in destroyers, but a battleship with cruisers and destroyers versus an all-destroyer force. Then things look different.

Michael Lyons

[maciej12]

[QUOTE=Lynx7725;225850]Uhm, nobody really knows why the Hood blew up the way it did; the most popular theory being what you cited. That there were only 3 survivors didn't really help explain things.

Actually the point I was trying to make is that the Hood was lightly armored and so could not take the pounding that the Bismark did. The fact remains that the Hood blew up because it was taking fire from the Bismark.

[Lynx7725]

The Japanese Admiral had the group in his sites and was pulverizing him. The main US Fleet was off chasing ghosts.
Yes, he had Taffy-3 in his sights and was pulverizing the poor CVEs, and the main US Fleet was lured into fighting against Ozawa's Northern Force... but by 0920 on 25 Oct 1944, when Kurita disengaged from Taffy-3, Halsey already been informed that the Center Force (under Kurita) is engaging Taffy-3 -- he was just ignoring the messages.

At this point, had Halsey heeded the call for help, Halsey's main force could have sacrificed Taffy-3 to delay Kurita, and used the main fleet to block off San Bernardino Strait (which Kurita eventually retired through). Had this happened, this would have caught Kurita's Center force between Halsey and presumably's Rear Admiral Jesse Oldendorf's 6 BBs, which was at Surigao Strait, just south of Taffy-3. (It must be noted that Oldendorf's surface force was considerably larger than Kurita's.).

Even if Halsey didn't wake up his ideas until 1000 (which he historically did), had Kurita continued and utterly destroyed Taffy-3's 6 CVE and odds and ends, he would have given Halsey sufficient time to rush his task forces into a confrontation -- historically, Kurita only managed to retreat to San Bernardino Strait at 2200 on 25 Oct 1944 when he broke off at 0920.

With 3rd Fleet's 9 fleet carriers, 7 CVE, and 6 BBs (these BBs are not Oldendorf's BBs, and we have to add other smaller ships) any confrontation with the USN main force would have pretty much guaranteed the total destruction Kurita's command -- whatever damage Kurita might have wrought on MacArthur would pale in comparison to the total destruction of a good portion of the IJN.

Even if Kurita had headed for the Sixth Army's landing beaches on Leyte.. which he probably could reach, Oldendorf would be in a position to engage Kurita's task force with superior numbers. And such a move would have allowed the main task force to get into a position to blockade San Bernardino Strait, and launch air attacks against the IJN. Again, likely to be a messy surface action and maybe even disruption to the Sixth Army, but the outcome would still be the total destruction of Kurita's force.

So, did Kurita chicken out? In all probability, no. All other scenarios would have him possibly dishing out damage to the Americans but probably losing all his ships. The overall numerical superiority of the Americans at Leyte Gulf was so great that the outcome if the Americans caught him was a foregone conclusion.

[Lynx7725]

Actually the point I was trying to make is that the Hood was lightly armored and so could not take the pounding that the Bismark did. The fact remains that the Hood blew up because it was taking fire from the Bismark.
The Hood was more a battlecruiser than anything else -- they don't carry enough armour to go toe-to-toe with a true BB, so your point on the armour is valid.

But we really don't know whether it was Bismark's fire that killed the Hood. What we do know, based on exploration of the wreck, was that the magazines exploded; what caused the explosion is not exactly known.

After all, the HMS Vanguard also had a magazine explosion on board on 9 July 1917 (while it was not in combat), but the root cause was a probable adjacent stokehold fire that set off the magazine.

Most people like the idea that the Bismark killed the Hood, as it has that heroic imagery that people like associated with wartime tragedies. It might even have happened, or it could be somebody flicking a lit cigerette butt where it didn't belong. We don't really know for sure.

[Colonel_Coo]

I

EDIT: And it was much the same at Midway; Yamamoto could have sent his BB in to bombard Midway -- and would probably have gotten away with it too! -- but the risks is that there is an unknown number of USN CVs out there, and the inevitable reinforcements from Pearl Harbour. These can possibly catch and sink the task group, ships which may be needed for an eventual offensive or defensive elsewhere. Considering that taking and holding Midway wasn't really the point of the operation made it hard to justify commiting the surface task force into the battle.

Uhm, Had Admiral Yamamoto actually placed his flag ship (a BB) along side the Carrier fleet, his new advanced electronics and communications would have prevented the Carriers from being surprised.

[Stealth]

I believe that the only successful design that put big guns on a smaller hull was the German "Pocket Battleships" of World War 2. Six 11'' Guns on a steady hull weighing in at only about 11-14000 tons(Depends on the source.)
A great set of ships, perfect for their commerce raiding duties.

Actually these were nothing more than overarmed heavy cruisers, and the Germans even rerated these as CA's.

The problem with these ships as commerce raiders was the the guns were too big for the task, ie sinking merchants. You need smaller, quicker firing guns for such. Against a merchie, theres very little difference between an 8" shell and an 11".

Their diesel engines were also very troublesome, and didn't give near the endurance the ships needed without breakdowns.

On paper, the Panzerschiff were fantastic ships, but in reality they weren't worth the cost.

The advantage the Panzerschiff had was that they caused a sensation amongst designers who marvelled at what the Germans fit into the displacement limitations, never mind that the Germans understated the displacement by ~ 20%. All of a sudden the British & French needed to counteract a ship which wasn't really right for her job in the first place.

[FreeFrench]

Can anyone explain CV, BB, CVE, CLV, ABC, C3PO and R2D2 please? I'm at sea in Acronym Ocean...

Please RSVP.

[mikoyan]

Can anyone explain CV, BB, CVE, CLV, ABC, C3PO and R2D2 please? I'm at sea in Acronym Ocean...

Please RSVP.

(From Memory)
BB = Battleship
CV = Aircraft Carrier
CVE = Escort Aircraft Carrier
CVL = Light Aircraft Carrier

CA = Cruiser
CL = Light Cruiser
CG = Guided Missile Cruiser

DD = Destroyer
DDE = Escort Destroyer
DDG = Guided Missile Destroyer

FF = Frigate
FFG = Guided Missile Frigate

SS = Submarine

An N designation after the ship = Nuclear

And after a search:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/index_ships_list.htm

[Colonel_Coo]

Can anyone explain CV, BB, CVE, CLV, ABC, C3PO and R2D2 please? I'm at sea in Acronym Ocean...

Please RSVP.

Common terminology to refence a ship type and hull number: prevents having to list every ship by name.

CV = Carrier-Aircraft (V stands for fixed wing of aircraft)
CVE = Carrier-Aircraft-Escort (smaller lighter carrier design to ferry aircraft or excort merchants)
DD = Destroyer
BB = Battleship
CA = Cruiser Armored/Armed
SS = Submarine

ALL THIRDS letter "e" stood for escort
All Third letter "N" now stands for Nuclear powered. As in CVN, SSN, CGN

[mikoyan]

Leyte Gulf stuff...

By the time Halsey got around to going back to the group protecting the beaches, quite a bit of damage had been inflicted. He probably would have destroyed the Japanese fleet, but they would have still be able to get more to the bottom, probably.

On Midway....
the Japanese had no idea what they were up against.

[Colonel_Coo]

On Midway....
the Japanese had no idea what they were up against.

On Midway, the Japanese had the advantage except for one thing: the USN had their coded messages and knew they were attacking.

Had Halsey not been pulled from command to a forced visit home, we would have still lost Midway. Nimitz was genius at putting the right Naval Officer in command at the right moments in the Pacific.

[maciej12]

The Hood was more a battlecruiser than anything else -- they don't carry enough armour to go toe-to-toe with a true BB, so your point on the armour is valid.

But we really don't know whether it was Bismark's fire that killed the Hood. What we do know, based on exploration of the wreck, was that the magazines exploded; what caused the explosion is not exactly known.

After all, the HMS Vanguard also had a magazine explosion on board on 9 July 1917 (while it was not in combat), but the root cause was a probable adjacent stokehold fire that set off the magazine.

Most people like the idea that the Bismark killed the Hood, as it has that heroic imagery that people like associated with wartime tragedies. It might even have happened, or it could be somebody flicking a lit cigerette butt where it didn't belong. We don't really know for sure.

I was never aware of that fact. I had always heard the "popular belief" story then. Thanks for the info, I always like to learn new things about WWII.

[Rick]

Regarding the Hood and the Bismark:

What we do have is reports from the German command and the testimony of the survivors of the Hood.

What coincides from both testimonies is that the Bismark had just begun firing when the Hood exploded. The German gunnery was that good that their first shots already braketed the Hood. 'Bracketed' meaning that there were shell falls both a bit short and a bit long of the Hood. That was a huge tactical adavantage for the Germans. Now given that the Hood's armor over the magazines was thin, it is more plausible that she exploded due to a German shell penetrating into her armory, than it is for a British Limey taking a casual smoke break in the midst of battle!

[Stealth]

I was never aware of that fact. I had always heard the "popular belief" story then. Thanks for the info, I always like to learn new things about WWII.

The most current theory as to what sank the Hood is as follows:

The hood was a WWI era ship that was essentially unmodernised by WWII. The biggest concession was the addition of AA guns, notable in the form of UP (Unrotated Projectile) mounts. These fired a barrage of rockets in the path of aircraft. These rockets had long trailing wires behind them to catch the props and wings, thus fouling the aircraft.

There were numerous light storage bunkers for this ammo across the ship, and there were some near the after boat storage where the explosion occurred.

What is believed to have occurred is that one of either the Bismarks or Prinz Eugens shells starter a fire in/near the after boat storage early on. This fire is then believed to have set off a locker of UP ammo, which then in turn set off the adjacent 4" secondary shell magazine, which again in turn set off the aft main magazine. Prior to the last explosion almost all witnesses viewed a sullen red fire near the aft boat storage, which would have been cordite (the main charge for shells) from the 4" magaine flaming off.

Also, more periphal damage was done by the Prinz Eugens shells than the Bismarks, mainly due to faulty exploders on the German shells.

[shadowhooch]

I for one am enjoying all the responses and info thoroughly!:D

There are so many movies about the European part of WWII, the only battles I knew anything about in the Pacific were the obvious 3: Pearl Harbour, Midway, and IwoJima.

So obviously, I've got HUGE gaps in my historical knowledge of WWII in the Pacific. Keep the battle notes and strategic commentary coming!

Oh, and WotC, it would be very enticing if, with each WAS unit you previewed, you gave a historical background about how each ship was used and some of the major battle stories they were involved in.:cool:

History is what sells for this game.

[Stealth]

I for one am enjoying all the responses and info thoroughly!:D

There are so many movies about the European part of WWII, the only battles I knew anything about in the Pacific were the obvious 3: Pearl Harbour, Midway, and IwoJima.

So obviously, I've got HUGE gaps in my historical knowledge of WWII in the Pacific. Keep the battle notes and strategic commentary coming!

Oh, and WotC, it would be very enticing if, with each WAS unit you previewed, you gave a historical background about how each ship was used and some of the major battle stories they were involved in.:cool:

History is what sells for this game.

DON'T ask WOTC for this!

Based on previous examples, they'd state the Hood was commissioned in 1940, had 18" guns, fought at Savo Island and was detroyed by a long lance torp fired from the Vittorio Vinito !

[mikoyan]

On Midway, the Japanese had the advantage except for one thing: the USN had their coded messages and knew they were attacking.

Had Halsey not been pulled from command to a forced visit home, we would have still lost Midway. Nimitz was genius at putting the right Naval Officer in command at the right moments in the Pacific.
Read the battle from the Japanese point of view. They had no idea what they were up against. They weren't sure if they were facing 1, 2 or 3 carriers. They had no idea where the US carriers were placed. They weren't sure if the US carriers were going up to chase the ruse against the Aleutians. They thought they sank the Yorktown at Coral Sea and they had no knowledge of the Hornet. They weren't really sending out recon until it was too late and because of that it led to the indecisiveness that led to the fateful moment of having fully armed planes on the deck as the dive bombers hit. The US had the full attack laid out before them, they knew what they were up against and could place their ships for maximum advantage (in case Midway was a ruse). In fact, the Japanese did a war game before the attack and one of the Japanese Admirals placed the ships about where Spruance had them. The Americans managed to sink two carriers and the Japanese dismissed that as "luck".

I agree with you on the Halsey part. He would pressed on and went after the rest of the fleet (which still had quite a punch). But because Spruance kept his carriers just out of gun range, Yamammoto decided to pull back.

There was a good chunk of luck on the Americans part but some of that luck was of the American's making.

[Joisey]

This is for Shadowhooch:

Battleship: Provides a fleet's long arm reach. Primary firepower against other capital ships. Shore Bombardment capability.

Battlecruiser: Originally envisioned by its creator, First Lord of the Sea Jackie Fischer, as a vessel that had cruiser speed and BB armament. The idea was that it would be able to catch anything smaller and destroy it (cruiser on down) and be able to outrun a true BB. Also envisioned as being put on the "wings" of the battle line to outflank the enemy line. As a class, it was considered a failure, but this was more do to admirals putting BC's into the main battleline rather than the original mission, where their light armor proved fatal. Two thirds of all ships sunk at Jutland were BC's.

Cruiser: A medium sized "workhorse" combat ship. Carries the armament to kill anything other than a BB. It is an "economy of force" unit because most missions don't require a BB.

Light Cruiser: More apt to be specialized for several combat roles, including that of Escort, anti-submarine, anti-aircraft, and anti-destroyer roles. Also used as a flagship for destroyer squadrons.

Destroyer: Also apt to be specialized as above. The destroyer was initially envisioned and designed to be a cheap attrition unit, charging enemy battle lines with torpedoes while the BB's slugged it out. Also tasked with "destroying" small "patrol-torpedo" boats and other small coastal craft used by Third World powers. With the advent of the sub, was primary platform for anti-submarine warfare. With the advent of naval aviation, tasked with primary anti-aircraft and escort role to capital ships.

PT boat: small, exceedingly cheap craft the size of a large cabin cruiser. Chiefly armed with a small number of torpedos. Designed to make high speed (read suicide) torpedo attack on larger, more expensive ships. Primarily used for night-time sneak attacks.

Submarine: Usually used in anti-commerce role. Not as effective as part of a battle fleet (until the advent of nuclear power) due to their relatively slow speed while submerged, and highly vulnerable to even light shell fire while surfaced.

Assault Carrier (CVA) or Heavy Carrier: During WWII a heavy carrier would carry approximately 100 aircraft, in some mix of fighters, dive bombers, and torpedo bombers. Carrier plane attacks increased the fleet's long range strike by a quantum magnitude, to far "over the horizon". The idea is to hit the enemy fleet and sink it without reprisal, but for the loss of some aircraft, which are considered expendable attrition units.

Light Carrier: Same mission as the Heavy Carrier, just less capable with half to 2/3rds the airwing size.

Escort Carrier: As the name implies, the primary mission is convoy escort and anti-submarine warfare. Includes troop convoys. Generally only carried 1/3 the aircraft of a heavy carrier. Primarily built and fielded by U.S. navy in WWII, which built hundreds of "baby whales".

[shadowhooch]

Thanks.

Air Questions: Were cruisers, destroyers, and AA fire from ships generally effective against planes? Or did planes pretty much rule the day?
What were the most effective AA tactics and who had the advantage (ships or planes)?
Or were fighters themselves actually the best AA?
From what little I know about the Yamoto...it was owned by attacks from the air.

Nation Questions: What were the strengths and weakness of each nation's naval force and tactics?

This thread is McDonalds for me....(I'm lovin' it!).

[pellulo]

if Germany had used the steel from the Bismark, they could have built, about another 300 type VII submarines, even if they all got sunk (roughly no less 4 cargo ships lost to one sub, about 1200 merchant ships would have been sunk). Most likely Britian, would have been starved into an truce, much less lost the Battle of the Atlantic. Believe me, 1200 merchants ships loaded with supplies, is well worth over a dozen Hoods, Thanks, Pellulo

[Colonel_Coo]

Read the battle from the Japanese point of view. They had no idea what they were up against. They weren't sure if they were facing 1, 2 or 3 carriers. They had no idea where the US carriers were placed. They weren't sure if the US carriers were going up to chase the ruse against the Aleutians. They thought they sank the Yorktown at Coral Sea and they had no knowledge of the Hornet. They weren't really sending out recon until it was too late and because of that it led to the indecisiveness that led to the fateful moment of having fully armed planes on the deck as the dive bombers hit. The US had the full attack laid out before them, they knew what they were up against and could place their ships for maximum advantage (in case Midway was a ruse). In fact, the Japanese did a war game before the attack and one of the Japanese Admirals placed the ships about where Spruance had them. The Americans managed to sink two carriers and the Japanese dismissed that as "luck".

I agree with you on the Halsey part. He would pressed on and went after the rest of the fleet (which still had quite a punch). But because Spruance kept his carriers just out of gun range, Yamammoto decided to pull back.

There was a good chunk of luck on the Americans part but some of that luck was of the American's making.

Correct on all parts. The Alaska attack was not a ruse though. After Miday, the Japanese fell back to two islands and left Adak and Amchitka un-occupied.

The IJN would have done better with their BB's with their CV's for AAA and recon. (I believe Japans only Radars were on two of the BB's: I could be wrong as it has been a while). Had the USN not known the data collected by breaking codes, then Midway would not have been guarded.

running low on fresh water. This ruse allowed the USN to pin-point where the IJN was going to strike. An open un-encrypted signal back to Hawaii saying that a water processor had broken and they were running low on Fresh water allowed the USN in to determine where the IJN was going to attack.

[Colonel_Coo]

if the German had used the steel from the Bismark, they could have built, about another 300 type VII submarines, even if they all got sunk (roughly no less 4 cargo ships lost to one sub, about 1200 merchant ships sunk). Most likely Britian, would have been starved into an truce, much less lost the Battle of the Atlantic, Thanks, Pellulo

This is a very LARGE fact. You can also convert the men, steel and material into PANZERs and see what Kursk would have been like with another 1000 German tanks. Those German Pocket BB's was a Major waste of steel, manpower and materials (oil, food, bombs)

[mikoyan]

Correct on all parts. The Alaska attack was not a ruse though. After Miday, the Japanese fell back to two islands and left Adak and Amchitka un-occupied.

The IJN would have done better with their BB's with their CV's for AAA and recon. (I believe Japans only Radars were on two of the BB's: I could be wrong as it has been a while). Had the USN not known the data collected by breaking codes, then Midway would not have been guarded.

running low on fresh water. This ruse allowed the USN to pin-point where the IJN was going to strike. An open un-encrypted signal back to Hawaii saying that a water processor had broken and they were running low on Fresh water allowed the USN in to determine where the IJN was going to attack.
The Alaska attack was a bit of a ruse though. It was designed to get the Americans to take their fleet up there and try to take out the Japanese fleet approaching the Aleutians and be woefully unprepared as the Americans realize the Japanese true objective.

[Lynx7725]

Thanks.

Air Questions: Were cruisers, destroyers, and AA fire from ships generally effective against planes? Or did planes pretty much rule the day?
Depends which era you are talking about. Early war ships are generally very weak in AA. Late war ships tend to have a LOT of AA.

How effective? Not too bad, I think. It keeps the attacking planes busy and lets the crew shoot back. The morale effect is good, to an extent.

But by and large, I think AA guns are pretty much the last line of defense. It's far better to sink the offending carriers early, or to kill the offending aircrafts early. In that sense, a CAP is far superior in defending against air attacks.


Nation Questions: What were the strengths and weakness of each nation's naval force and tactics?
Oh boy, this is going to be a massive topic.

In a nutshell, IJN relied largely on superior optics and superior torpedoes. They have an issue with strategic grasp and production capability, as well as training ability. USN relied on radar and gunnery, and had a huge production capability. They had initially had issues with training and tactical abilities, but overcame this over the years. By the end of the war, the USN was quite capable and had the quantity too.

Brits just relied on sheer iron guts. :D

It's a lot more complicated than this, of course, because WWII navies are largely impacted by WWI navies. So in order to study the navies, you really need to reach back all the way to WWI.

[shadowhooch]

In that sense, a CAP is far superior in defending against air attacks.


What is CAP?

(And thanks very much for the info!)

[Joisey]

Depends which era you are talking about. Early war ships are generally very weak in AA. Late war ships tend to have a LOT of AA.

How effective? Not too bad, I think. It keeps the attacking planes busy and lets the crew shoot back. The morale effect is good, to an extent.

But by and large, I think AA guns are pretty much the last line of defense. It's far better to sink the offending carriers early, or to kill the offending aircrafts early. In that sense, a CAP is far superior in defending against air attacks.


Oh boy, this is going to be a massive topic.

In a nutshell, IJN relied largely on superior optics and superior torpedoes. They have an issue with strategic grasp and production capability, as well as training ability. USN relied on radar and gunnery, and had a huge production capability. They had initially had issues with training and tactical abilities, but overcame this over the years. By the end of the war, the USN was quite capable and had the quantity too.

Brits just relied on sheer iron guts. :D

It's a lot more complicated than this, of course, because WWII navies are largely impacted by WWI navies. So in order to study the navies, you really need to reach back all the way to WWI.

I agree with what Lynx wrote, but would add this:

U.S. had most effective AA, Italy had the worst. In WWII, you could get through pretty much any AA defense, IF you had enough planes. U.S. was successful in largely defeating the Japanese Kamikaze attacks, they ran out of planes before we ran out of ships, and we didn't lose much in the way of capital ships. AA fire control was rudimentary. Yes, Yamato was destroyed by planes. It was also a lone ship on a suicide mission to disrupt an amphibious landing zone area when attacked by approx 500 aircraft.

Japan excelled in night time engagements and had superior torpedos. Japan had very poor damage control designs and procedures. Japan had a very good naval air wing up until it was lost at Midway. While the Japanese carrier fleet was first rate, it had no back up. Once it was gone, it was gone. Germany excelled at U-boat warfare.

U.S. had quantitative and technical excellence, with the best ship designs and lots of 'em. U.S. had more success in anti-commerce u-boat operations then Germany did, chiefly due to Japanese failure to implement a convoy system.

Britain had a large standing navy, and a high degree of training and excellence in seamanship. They were working with generally older ships than their enemies, while the U.S. fleet was 95% brand spanking new.

France and Italy: Well, when you've got nothing nice to say......

[Lynx7725]

What is CAP?

(And thanks very much for the info!)
Combat Air Patrol. Sorry, I should be careful with the jargon.

[Lynx7725]

U.S. had most effective AA, Italy had the worst. In WWII, you could get through pretty much any AA defense, IF you had enough planes. U.S. was successful in largely defeating the Japanese Kamikaze attacks, they ran out of planes before we ran out of ships, and we didn't lose much in the way of capital ships.
Err, I don't know. There were many hits, just not that many sunk. A ship pulled off the line is a ship gone from combat operations.. it's just that the USN had more ships, as you said, so the overall combat effectiveness wasn't badly impacted. But the kamikaze casualties were a concern to the USN.


Yes, Yamato was destroyed by planes. It was also a lone ship on a suicide mission to disrupt an amphibious landing zone area when attacked by approx 500 aircraft.
It actually was part of a task group, so it had cruiser and DD support. But no air cover, so it was just a matter of time, and the USN ain't dumb. :)



Britain had a large standing navy, and a high degree of training and excellence in seamanship. They were working with generally older ships than their enemies, while the U.S. fleet was 95% brand spanking new.
Well.. the IJN did help them a bit, first at Pearl, then at Gundalcanal. One big thing here is that the US had the industrial capabilities to turn out the designs and make up for the losses, and Japan didn't.

[Joisey]

About a third of a carrier's air wing would be fighters. During wartime in a warzone, procedure called for a combat air patrol to be up for early interception at all times (not night-time, the technology wasn't up for that in WWII). CAP could be as little as two planes, or the whole fighter wing. CAP was a carrier group's first line of defense to enemy air attack.

A risky move was to send your fighters with your strike aircraft to protect them from enemy CAP. That was really putting your eggs all in one basket. Very effective as it neutralized the enemy CAP, but if the enemy found your fleet you'd be in big trouble.

[Belisarius]

As I understand it, the Kamikaze attacks forced a change in the way the USN dealt with air attacks. Early in the war, the primary AA weapons were .30, .50, and 20mm machine guns. The fire from these weapons were often enough to deter attacking planes, or at least throw off their aim a bit. But with the kamikazes, you actually had to destroy the planes to be effective, and these lighter machine guns wouldn't cut it. So as the war in the Pacific progressed into 1945, they were supplanted by 40mm guns.

[MarcusAurelius]

Great thread. This has been an interesting read from beginning to end.

[Cruizin2000]

To add to Joisey's post, Japan liked to separate their ships into many different fleets that could sometimes be separted by up to 300 miles. This would greatly reduce the AA fire that they could throw up. The Battle of Midway is a good example.

C2000

[General_Blitzkrieg]

Battleship warfare is forever dead....the seas are now the domain of the submarine and the aircraft carrier.

[Colonel_Coo]

The Alaska attack was a bit of a ruse though. It was designed to get the Americans to take their fleet up there and try to take out the Japanese fleet approaching the Aleutians and be woefully unprepared as the Americans realize the Japanese true objective.

It was a big commitment if it was ruse. Two carriers, occupation troops. I believe that the Japanese intended on sealing off the Pacific and be able to react to a retreating or isolate a damaged US Navy. War plans intended far greater damage to Alaska and forward occupation. This was to protect the northern front of Japan and Kurielles.

But Midway was not the turning point for Japan. That tipping point was Gudacanal.
Had they been successful in splitting Hawaii from Australia (UK from US ineffect) then they felt they could still isolate and destroy the USN or HMN at will. Gudacanal stopped this from happening and proved USN might.

[mikoyan]

It was a big commitment if it was ruse. Two carriers, occupation troops. I believe that the Japanese intended on sealing off the Pacific and be able to react to a retreating or isolate a damaged US Navy. War plans intended far greater damage to Alaska and forward occupation. This was to protect the northern front of Japan and Kurielles.

But Midway was not the turning point for Japan. That tipping point was Gudacanal.
Had they been successful in splitting Hawaii from Australia (UK from US ineffect) then they felt they could still isolate and destroy the USN or HMN at will. Gudacanal stopped this from happening and proved USN might.
It was a ruse from the Japanese point of view. The main attack was on Midway (as evidenced by the 4 main carriers, a bunch of other carriers, battleships, etc.). They wanted the Americans to go up there and deal with the smaller fleet and were hoping to catch the Americans between the two fleets. The real target was the American carriers though. The Japanese wanted to draw the Americans into a fight and hopefully sink the carriers. The attack on Tokyo while not accomplishing any real damage highlighted the danger that carriers presented (the Japanese high command were a little embarassed that they couldn't protect the Emperor).

Midway was not the turning point, but it certainly was a turning point. They lost 4 carriers and most of their experienced pilots. The Americans got the morale victory of sinking some of the carriers that attacked Pearl.

As for the other chunk of thread...One of the reasons why the Americans had the advantage in training is that the Americans insisted on rotating it's pilots. The pilots would fly a certain number of missions and go back home to pass on that experience to new pilots. The other countries tended to fly pilots until they either cracked or were shot down. Not much of their experience got back to their trainees.

[Rick]

Thanks.

Air Questions: Were cruisers, destroyers, and AA fire from ships generally effective against planes? Or did planes pretty much rule the day?
What were the most effective AA tactics and who had the advantage (ships or planes)?
Or were fighters themselves actually the best AA?
From what little I know about the Yamoto...it was owned by attacks from the air.

Nation Questions: What were the strengths and weakness of each nation's naval force and tactics?

This thread is McDonalds for me....(I'm lovin' it!).

Early in the war, the USN learned that on average it took about 4,000 rounds to bring down one enemy aircraft. By mid war, the techies at MIT figured out how to have a radio transmitter survive the environment of being shot out from a barrel. Thus the proximity fuse was born.

That fuse dropped the average from 4,000 shells down to about 400 shells per enemy plane shot down. Those kamakazie dives occurred when the proximity fuse was already standard equipment on USN ships. As much damage as the kamakazies did, imagine what it would have been like if ten times the amount of planes got through!

The USN preferred air defense was to have fighters attack the torpedo bombers and dive bombers before they ever came to the fleet. If that was not possible, then the ships own AAA had to protect the fleet. [as a side note, that same promitity fuse was applied to artillery shells, allowing for air bursts where the shell would explode about 8 to 12 feet above the ground so that it's shrapnel could be that much more effective rather]

As for nations tactics and strengths and weakness', that will have to wait for another thread.

[Wyldman]

Not building the Bismarck and building lots more subs or tanks would not have been a smart political or strategic move for Hitler. Because of the long build times for capital ships (the fasted build during WW2 was the Iowa, 36 months to build) spys would find out about every ship laid down (being built). And France and England reacted to every ship that Germany or Italy laid down. France built the Dunkerque and Strassburg, because of the 3 pocket battleships. England built 5 - King George V class battleships and plans for 4 Lion class ships and France 3- Richelieu class battleships and 3 other Battleships in response to the Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Bismarck and Tirpitz and the 4 - Vittorio Veneto class battleships. Even the Soviets started 2 battleships and 2 BCs at this time. The US started 2 North Carolina BBs in 37, and 4 South Dakota class in 38, in reaction to England starting to build the King George V class and rumors of Japan building new battleships.

Getting back to my first statement about subs instead of Battleships. Look at the amount of steel used by all the participants that could have been used for planes, tanks or light ships. When Germany invaded France in 1940, how many more French and English planes and tanks would have been available if they were not building Battleships? From 1934 to 1940 England 9 BBs planned 5 finished. France 6 BBs & 2BCs planned and 3 finished. Germany 2 BCs & 1 BBs finished by 1940 Tirpitz completed 1941 and 2 of the 6 H class BBs started (not much done) by 1940. Italy 2 BBs completed by 1940 and 2 more being worked on. USSR 2 BBs & 2BCs started. Japan was building 4 Yamato class BBs in 1940 and completed 2 as BBs and 1 as a carrier during the war. And lastly the US 6 BBs building in 1940 and started plans for 11 more (6 Iowa and 5 Montana plus those 6 Alaska class BCs.
So in my opinion the German ships caused a greater reaction in the Allies than the steel and manpower used to build the Bismarck, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau.
Sorry for my ramblings.

[FreeFrench]

Thank you very much.

Common terminology to refence a ship type and hull number: prevents having to list every ship by name.

CV = Carrier-Aircraft (V stands for fixed wing of aircraft)
CVE = Carrier-Aircraft-Escort (smaller lighter carrier design to ferry aircraft or excort merchants)
DD = Destroyer
BB = Battleship
CA = Cruiser Armored/Armed
SS = Submarine

ALL THIRDS letter "e" stood for escort
All Third letter "N" now stands for Nuclear powered. As in CVN, SSN, CGN

[NEVjr]

Armored vehicles on land also faced physical and logistical limitations that ships at sea didn't.

At more than 50 tons, The Tiger I was too heavy for most bridges. The tanks's weight put severe stress on the suspension, whose complexity made maintenance difficult — making it prone to breakdowns. Plus, the Tiger was too large to be transported by rail without removing the outer row of wheels.

Warship designers don't have to worry about such issues. A battleship has no need for a suspension system. Its movement is limited only by its draft. This helps eliminate the speed gap at sea. So while the Tiger could be easily outmanuevered by faster medium tanks, most WWII battleships could maintain fleet speeds of 30 knots or more.


as well, think of where the tiger, king tiger and jagdtiger were best, open fields where they could see the enemy a long way out and start firing. the ocean is the biggest flatest open field you can get

[dracos42]

This is a very LARGE fact. You can also convert the men, steel and material into PANZERs and see what Kursk would have been like with another 1000 German tanks. Those German Pocket BB's was a Major waste of steel, manpower and materials (oil, food, bombs)

The pocket battleships were designed and built in the early 1930's by the Weimer Republic. Germany started its secret rearmament under the Weimer. The pocket BB's were to replace the old pre-dreadnaughts of the German fleet, and to be commerce raiders. With the exception of the handful of battlecruisers, the pocket BB's would outgun any cruiser fast enough to catch them. Aircraft carriers were also few and far between until the start of the war.

The German fleet did keep a large part of the Allied navies tied down. The presence of the Tirpitz and other German ships in Norway meant that Allied capital ships had to escort every convoy to Murmansk. For the cost of one German warship, how much did Britain need to spend to counter that ship?

Does one Bismarck directly translate into 300 u-boats or 1,000 panthers? Would that equation be different if the Bismarck had made it to France? What were the effects of the Bismarck's and Prince Eugen's sortie on the British convoys? Did the u-boats benefit from the sortie? One lesson could be that Germany needed more long-range aircraft.

I have read that the Bismarck and Prince Eugen sortied when they did in order to take pressure off of the North African resupply convoys. Otherwise the sortie could have been put off until more German heavy units were available.

Just a bunch of naval stuff.

Mike L.
have lab coat, will travel

[Colonel_Coo]

The pocket battleships were designed and built in the early 1930's by the Weimer Republic. Germany started its secret rearmament under the Weimer. The pocket BB's were to replace the old pre-dreadnaughts of the German fleet, and to be commerce raiders. With the exception of the handful of battlecruisers, the pocket BB's would outgun any cruiser fast enough to catch them. Aircraft carriers were also few and far between until the start of the war.

The German fleet did keep a large part of the Allied navies tied down. The presence of the Tirpitz and other German ships in Norway meant that Allied capital ships had to escort every convoy to Murmansk. For the cost of one German warship, how much did Britain need to spend to counter that ship?

Does one Bismarck directly translate into 300 u-boats or 1,000 panthers? Would that equation be different if the Bismarck had made it to France? What were the effects of the Bismarck's and Prince Eugen's sortie on the British convoys? Did the u-boats benefit from the sortie? One lesson could be that Germany needed more long-range aircraft.

I have read that the Bismarck and Prince Eugen sortied when they did in order to take pressure off of the North African resupply convoys. Otherwise the sortie could have been put off until more German heavy units were available.

Just a bunch of naval stuff.

Mike L.
have lab coat, will travel


My thoughts are that the Allied countries (sans Russia) would not have built anything geared for war with the capital used to build the BB's needed to offset the German ones. Submarines would not have triggerred such a large fleet build up. The presence of the German threat triggered a political response that lead to a UK build up.

Also, the Washington treaty limited BB's and other large heavies; sans Aircraft Carriers ( that's why Japan had so many).

[Lynx7725]

Submarines would not have triggerred such a large fleet build up. The presence of the German threat triggered a political response that lead to a UK build up.
I'm not sure about that. The UK had very bad experience in WWI with German U-boats; a concentrated construction effort, even assuming that Germany outright defied the ban on it -- IIRC, the treaty did ban the construction of U-boats until Hitler outright ignored it.

I'm not overly familiar with the European naval history -- I find the cutthroat nature of the PTO naval engagements more fascinating -- but logic does dictate that had Germany went on a U-boat building spree, the UK would almost certainly respond with added constructions of destroyers, maritime patrols, and improvements in the methods of detection and destruction of submarines. It would still have resulted in an arms race, just of different classes of ships.

It's hard to say what these developments would have meant for the naval engagements in the lonely north seas, where a good part of the German U-boat predation took place. But it may be that with added Allied protection, the U-boats might had a more difficult time attacking the shipping, even though you have more of them.

[Colonel_Coo]

...
It's hard to say what these developments would have meant for the naval engagements in the lonely north seas, where a good part of the German U-boat predation took place. But it may be that with added Allied protection, the U-boats might had a more difficult time attacking the shipping, even though you have more of them.

Even with more "period" weapons available when the U-Boats engaged in unrestricted warfare, having a larger fleet of submarines would have resulted in similar suffering at an increased rate until cheaper solutions were found. DDE's, airborne radar, long range bombers, US Navy 8th fleet (dedicated to create an effect ASW effort).

[MarcusAurelius]

Bump for transfer to new Axis & Allies Naval Miniatures forum.

[tragicmishap]

Strange thread. I thought WWII pretty much demonstrated that the big battleship had lost it's relevance in naval warfare. It was the coming out party of the carrier.