# Battleship versus Aircraft carrier **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 25, 2012, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099 "2012-05-25T20:05:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Gatopescado](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gatopescado/32/5711_2.png) [@Gatopescado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gatopescado)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/61 "2012-05-29T06:00:56Z")
Given the OP’s scenario, the carrier could scuttle itself, and thereby claim\* Victory\*! Crazy OP, but a fun thread. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/62 "2012-05-29T06:39:01Z")
Just picturing the sequence of a “search and destroy” mission on a target only ten miles away: [mission starts] Radar: _beep_ Iowa Captain: Oh, there he is. Destroy him, would you? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![AncientHumanoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ancienthumanoid/32/278_2.png) [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/63 "2012-05-29T12:27:27Z")
You would prefer another target, a military target? Then name the ship! I grow tired of asking this so it will be the last time: Where is the rebel aircraft carrier? ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/64 "2012-05-29T15:38:11Z")
> [@NoClueBoy](#): > > You would prefer another target, a military target? Then name the ship! I grow tired of asking this so it will be the last time: Where is the rebel aircraft carrier? \*pssst, Grand Moff Iowa, if you’re looking for that carrier, just have a look out that porthole there… ---
**Author:** ![bucketybuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@bucketybuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bucketybuck)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/65 "2012-05-29T16:06:14Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Just picturing the sequence of a “search and destroy” mission on a target only ten miles away: > > [mission starts] > Radar: _beep_ > Iowa Captain: Oh, there he is. Destroy him, would you? Thanks. In fairness to my meticulously researched OP, ten miles is a lot longer in Ireland than it is in the US. Of course, many things are longer over here. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/66 "2012-05-29T18:35:33Z")
> [@David42](#): > > Well it wasn’t “No damage” and it wasn’t “severe damage” (in light of the numbers of ships involved) so I guess “some damage” is appropriate. Again, nonsense. The destroyers were not doing ‘some damage,’ they sank three heavy cruisers, a very substantial part of Kurita’s force and 25% of the heavy cruiser tonnage of the IJN for the entire war. I have to wonder what you think would be needed to drop the modifier ‘some’ in trying to minimize it. > [@](#): > > The Taffy’s planes are not credited with the sinking of any ship nor causing them serious damage nor causing any to not be battle worthy. Various sources describe their impact as “slight” to “moderate.” Some of them had to carry depth charges (ineffective for armor) and some had no more than machine guns. The Avengers only had bombs for ground targets; they didn’t carry torpedoes or armor-piercing bombs. The Taffies did not have an offensive anti-ship mission and did not carry that sort of ordnance. Rather than me hand-waving, you are giving credit where none is due. I’d love to see your sources for this information, since you again are entirely wrong. [Suzuya](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Suzuya_(1934)): > [@](#): > > In late October, the Japanese fleet assembled in Brunei in response to the threatened American invasion of the Philippines. On 25 October 1944, in the Battle off Samar, Suzuya engaged the three “Jeep carriers” in American Task Group 77.4,\*\* but was attacked by ten TBM Avenger torpedo-bombers. A near-miss destroyed her port propeller. At 1050, Suzuya was attacked by 30 other carrier aircraft. Another near-miss caused the Long Lance torpedoes in Suzuya’s No. 1 torpedo tubes to explode, which in turn started other fires, damaged the starboard engine rooms and the No. 7 boiler room. \*\*Suzuya was abandoned at 1150, and at 1322 sank at 11°45.2′N 126°11.2′E.[4] Destroyer Okinami took off Captain Teraoka and 401 crewmen. [Chokai](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Ch%C5%8Dkai): > [@](#): > > The Chōkai was then transferred to Cruiser Division Five, where she survived another attack on October 24, 1944, this time by aircraft. On the morning of 25 October, the Chōkai, as a part of a large war fleet of IJN battleships, cruisers, and destroyers engaged an American force of escort carriers, destroyers, and destroyer escorts in the Battle off Samar, the Philippines, as part of the huge Battle of Leyte Gulf. During the engagement, the Chōkai was hit amidships, on the starboard side, by torpedoes from the destroyer escort Samuel B. Roberts. A series of hits from Roberts’s pair of 5-inch guns inflicted damage to her bridge and forward gun turret. Then, a secondary explosion, caused by detonation of the armed and shock-sensitive Type 93 torpedoes on her decks, knocked out her engines and rudder. The Chōkai promptly dropped out of formation, unable to continue. > > **Within minutes, an American aircraft dropped a 500-lb (227 kg) bomb onto the Chōkai’s forward machinery room. Fires began to rage around the cruiser, and she went dead in the water.** Later that day she was scuttled by torpedoes from Japanese destroyer Fujinami (11°22′N 126°22′ECoordinates: 11°22′N 126°22′E),[1] which also rescued some of her crew. Two days later the Fujinami was itself sunk with the loss of all hands, including the Chōkai survivors, which makes Chōkai one of the largest vessels to be sunk with all hands aboard during World War II. [Chikuma](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Chikuma_(1938)): > [@](#): > > On 25 October, during the Battle off Samar, Chikuma engaged U.S. escort aircraft carriers, helping to sink USS Gambier Bay, but came under fire from the American destroyer USS Heermann and heavy air attack. Chikuma inflicted severe damage on Heermann, \*\*but was soon attacked by four TBM Avenger torpedo-bombers, one of which succeeded in hitting her stern port quarter with a Mark 13 torpedo that severed her stern and disabled her port screw and rudder. Chikuma’s speed dropped to 18 knots (33 km/h), then to 9 knots (17 km/h), but more seriously, she became unsteerable. At 1105, Chikuma was attacked by five TBMs from USS Kitkun Bay. She was hit portside amidships by two torpedoes and her engine rooms flooded. At 1400, three TBMs from a composite squadron of ships from the USS Omanney Bay and the USS Natoma Bay led by Lt. Joseph Cady dropped more torpedoes which hit Chikuma portside. \*\*Cady was later awarded the Navy Cross for his action. It is generally thought that destroyer Nowaki took off survivors from Chikuma, and then scuttled her at 11°25′N 126°36′ECoordinates: 11°25′N 126°36′E in the late morning of on 25 October 1944, but a more recent study suggests Chikuma sank from the effect of the air attack, and Nowaki only arrived in time to pick up survivors from the water.[3] Didn’t you say something about the Avengers on the escort carriers not having any torpedoes?:rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Damage from the Taffy’s planes to Yamato herself here are clearly stated to be limited to shrapnel. Well that settles it then, they clearly didn’t do any damage to Kurita at all. Just like the taffies as a whole were incapable of surface actions. > [@](#): > > Perhaps what is confusing you is that toward the end, some planes from Halsey’s Task Force 38.1 hit Kurita after he’d headed back north. Those aircraft had appropriate ordnance and made Kurita’s three old battleships unbattle-worthy. But Kurita had already disengaged by then. If Kurita hadn’t turned around, he’d at least have sunk the Taffies before he had to deal with these planes. No, what’s confusing is you are willfully unaware of the actual facts: the planes from the escort carriers were responsible in concert with the destroyers and destroyer escorts for sinking three heavy cruisers; the taffies torpedo bombers had torpedoes; and Kurita somehow didn’t manage to come anywhere close to sinking the taffies and in fact only sank one escort carrier. > [@](#): > > I would concede, there were more guns being carried on Oldendorf’s ships. Oldendorf had six battleships; Kurita had four. But none of them were a match for Yamato. First of all, Oldendorf had the old battleships; the newer ones were in Haolsey’s 3rd fleet. Yamato was only three years old. Big shocker, _Yamato_ envy. One ship does not make Kurita have a superior force. You might want to note _Yamato’s_ actions off of Samar: she was forced to turn north to avoid torpedoes and became separated from the rest of the fleet. > [@](#): > > Further, at Surigao striat, three of Oldendorf’s battleships never effectively engaged to due to fire control problems; unable to find firing solutions by any means other than visual and finding them too late. There are no accounts that the Japanese had any such problems. Really?:dubious: Not even the fact that Oldendorf’s battleships ripped _Yamashiro_ apart with radar directed gunfire at Surigao Strait and the _Yamashiro_ couldn’t even return fire? I guess being entirely unable to find a fire solution can be described as not having any problems with fire control in a very warped way. It’s amazing that you’re trying to use this as a negative against Oldendorf’s ships. > [@](#): > > Kurita also had more heavy cruisers, but fewer destroyers. This is getting ridiculous. Three of those heavy cruisers had been sunk by the taffies and the other ones had taken damage. How much can you try to dodge this fact? > [@](#): > > Tell the truth, I think it is more than charitable to say it’s anyone’s guess. Most Likely, Kurita would prevail. Do you have anything to back this up aside from your opinion? > [@](#): > > Had Kurita known he wasn’t looking at Halsey, there can be no denying that Yamato alone would have devastated the Taffy carriers. They didn’t have any armor at all; a single one of Yamato’s 18.1" shells would have sank any of them. Yet oddly in the actual facts of the battle his entire task force only managed to sink one of those escort carriers, and _Yamato_ had to break off to avoid being torpedoed. > [@](#): > > And you are completely ignoring Japanese ground-based aircraft… “The heavy air attacks on Task Group 38.3 which had resulted in the loss of the Princeton indicated that the enemy still had powerful air forces…” You might want to reread the thread since I already noted _Princeton’s_ loss to dive bombing. Which happened before the Battle off Samar. And was part of Halsey’s task force, not the taffies. > [@](#): > > And you’re ignoring the fact that Oldendorf was almost out of ammunition. No, you’re repeating erroneous information. You may want to take a look at S. E. Morison’s volume on Leyte I linked to earlier; this is one of the things he went into some depth on. He includes a shell count broken down by AP and HC (High Capacity, HE) for each of Oldendorf’s battleships. Oldendorf had more than enough after Surigao Strait to engage Kurita’s force decisively. > [@](#): > > I’m reading the O.P. that says the carrier has NO PLANES, not planes under poor command. Funny, I’m reading the one that says an aircraft carrier and a battleship decide to open battle at under 20,000 yards; first with no planes at all and then no planes in the air. Both conditions qualify as having planes under poor command. ---
**Author:** ![markdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@markdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/markdash)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/67 "2012-05-29T19:00:44Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Next up - Typhoon-class sub vs Halifax-class frigate, except the former has no torpedos and the latter can only turn left. Is the sub carrying anti-ship missiles? ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/68 "2012-05-29T19:13:31Z")
> [@bucketybuck](#): > > In fairness to my meticulously researched OP, ten miles is a lot longer in Ireland than it is in the US. Of course, many things are longer over here. 😉 Talking about lines at the liquor store? 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/69 "2012-05-29T19:55:52Z")
> [@markdash](#): > > Is the sub carrying anti-ship missiles? Yes, but they were all installed by the lowest bidder, whose work crews are notorious for drunkenness. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/70 "2012-05-29T19:58:46Z")
**David42** , you’ve just had your head handed to you. Time to take a rest. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/71 "2012-05-29T20:02:53Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > Again, nonsense. The destroyers were not doing ‘some damage,’ they sank three heavy cruisers, a very substantial part of Kurita’s force and 25% of the heavy cruiser tonnage of the IJN for the entire war. I have to wonder what you think would be needed to drop the modifier ‘some’ in trying to minimize it. A semantic quibble. A note for posterity: here, the destroyers sank three cruisers. > [@Dissonance](#): > > I’d love to see your sources for this information, since you again are entirely wrong. > > [Suzuya](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Suzuya_(1934)): > [Chokai](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Ch%C5%8Dkai): > [Chikuma](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Chikuma_(1938)):Didn’t you say something about the Avengers on the escort carriers not having any torpedoes?:rolleyes: > > Well that settles it then, they clearly didn’t do any damage to Kurita at all. Just like the taffies as a whole were incapable of surface actions. Having an odd torpedo or two around doesn’t change the fact that most of the Taffys’ planes did not have the right ordnance. What exactly was their mission, here, support the invasion, or seek and destroy the IJN? My claim is not that no escort carrier could ever have an anti-ship role. My point is, if Kurita KNEW that the Taffies did not have a BUNCH MORE torpedoes (they didn’t–are you hand-waving the fact that most hadn’t the proper ordnance?) My point is about how ON THIS MISSION, they weren’t loaded with torpedoes and armor piercing bombs like Halsey was, whose mission was indeed the seek and destroy which you seem to think the Taffies also were doing. “Taffy 3 was designed to provide shore support and anti-submarine patrols; not to engage in fleet action against battleships.” > **[Takeo Kurita](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takeo_Kurita)** > > Takeo Kurita (Japanese: 栗田 健男, Hepburn: Kurita Takeo; 28 April 1889 – 19 December 1977) was a vice admiral in the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) during World War II. Kurita commanded IJN 2nd Fleet, the main Japanese attack force during the Battle of Leyte Gulf, the largest naval battle in history. > Takeo Kurita was born in Mito city, Ibaraki Prefecture, in 1889. He was sent off to Etajima in 1905 and graduated from the 38th class of the Imperial Japanese Naval Academy in 1910, ranked 28th out of a ... > [@Dissonance](#): > > No, what’s confusing is you are willfully unaware of the actual facts: the planes from the escort carriers were responsible in concert with the destroyers and destroyer escorts for sinking three heavy cruisers; the taffies torpedo bombers had torpedoes; and Kurita somehow didn’t manage to come anywhere close to sinking the taffies and in fact only sank one escort carrier. Now, it’s my willfull ignorance of the fact that destroyers and planes \*\*together \*\*sank three cruisers. Above, it was the destroyers, you admitted, when you were quibbling over the meaning of “some.” Keep in mind, I have myself argued “slight to moderate” damage done by the Taffy’s planes as various sources claim. > [@Dissonance](#): > > Big shocker, _Yamato_ envy. One ship does not make Kurita have a superior force. You might want to note _Yamato’s_ actions off of Samar: she was forced to turn north to avoid torpedoes and became separated from the rest of the fleet. And of course making up a phrase like “Yamato Envy” changes the **FACT** that Yamato class ships could take five times as much damage as a ship like the California. I didn’t claim one ship alone was superior. Kurita started with 10 heavy cruisers, lost two the day before, which leaves 8. Three more sank, leaving five. Oldendorf had four. Kurita had four effective battleships, and the only new one (not counting Halsey, out of range) Oldendorf had three effective battleships, and whether the accountants found some ammunition later or not, believed he was almost out. > [@Dissonance](#): > > Really?:dubious: Not even the fact that Oldendorf’s battleships ripped _Yamashiro_ apart with radar directed gunfire at Surigao Strait and the _Yamashiro_ couldn’t even return fire? I guess being entirely unable to find a fire solution can be described as not having any problems with fire control in a very warped way. It’s amazing that you’re trying to use this as a negative against Oldendorf’s ships. I am not talking about Yamashiro having no problems. I am saying Kurita’s force had no problems. Yamashiro was an old battleship outclassed by Oldendorf; Oldendorf’s ships had far better fire control systems (if they worked correctly)than Yamashiro had. For the three battleships Oldendorf had where the fire control was working properly, their range (with accuracy) was greater than Yamashiro’s. You must think Yamashiro and Yamato were sister ships or equivalents. They weren’t. Yamato’s effective range was greater than anything Oldendorf had. Yamato had both modern radar and guns with a greater range. It’s possible one salvo from Yamato could sink California before California could get close enough. Simply: Oldendorf superior to the southern force does not make Oldendorf superior to the center force. THREE of Oldendorf’s ships sank Yamashiro. The other three were ineffective. So, Oldendorf wins against Yamashiro. You make the mistake, no doubt due to your enlightened non-“Yamato-envy” view, that Yamashiro was the equivalent of Yamato, which I am unwilling to do. Yamato was state-of-the-art, three years old, equipped with radar fire control, and had a greater range than anything Oldendorf had. You’re arguing what was a three to two advantage in Surigao strait was six to two, ignore the fact that Oldendorf crossed Yamashiro’s “T” and claiming the results would be the same against a far more effective battleship with an additional three old battleships backing her up, without crossing the “T” and, even if they did realize they had ammo at a later date, they thought they had none at the time. Again, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and Maryland were not effective in sinking the southern force because they had fire control problems. "The other three U.S. battleships, equipped with less advanced gunnery radar, had difficulty arriving at a firing solution. Maryland eventually succeeded in visually ranging on the splashes of the other battleships’ shells, and then fired a total of 48 16 in (410 mm) projectiles. Pennsylvania was unable to find a target and her guns remained silent.[4] “Mississippi only obtained a solution at the end of the battle-line action, and then fired just one (full) salvo of twelve 14 in (360 mm) shells. This was the last salvo ever to be fired by a battleship against another heavy ship, ending an era in naval history.” > **[Battle of Leyte Gulf](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leyte_Gulf)** > > 3rd Fleet > 7th Fleet > Combined Fleet I’ve cited this before, why not read it? then you might realize I am not arguing my opinion about it, but FACTS. > [@Dissonance](#): > > This is getting ridiculous. Three of those heavy cruisers had been sunk by the taffies and the other ones had taken damage. How much can you try to dodge this fact? > > Do you have anything to back this up aside from your opinion? > > Yet oddly in the actual facts of the battle his entire task force only managed to sink one of those escort carriers, and _Yamato_ had to break off to avoid being torpedoed. You’re right, it’s getting ridiculous. In version three of your opinion, you now claim it was the Jeep carriers that sank the three cruisers. As I am claiming all along, Kurita would have sank more escort carriers if he hadn’t turned around. Whatever few torpedoes the taffies may have coincidentally had laying around to load Avengers with, you can be sure they had NO MORE or else they wouldn’t have flown with depth charges or nothing but their machine guns. Now does it make a difference that Kurita didn’t know this? You see, he thought the same damage he was taking would continue, when it most certainly wouldn’t have. The Taffies shot their wad. Kurita gave up not knowing that. > [@Dissonance](#): > > You might want to reread the thread since I already noted _Princeton’s_ loss to dive bombing. Which happened before the Battle off Samar. And was part of Halsey’s task force, not the taffies. And if Kurita had decided to hang around and called in air strikes to assist him, as was the plan? But I’m sure that somehow weakens Kurita, so that the Taffies wind up the winners here. > [@Dissonance](#): > > No, you’re repeating erroneous information. You may want to take a look at S. E. Morison’s volume on Leyte I linked to earlier; this is one of the things he went into some depth on. He includes a shell count broken down by AP and HC (High Capacity, HE) for each of Oldendorf’s battleships. Oldendorf had more than enough after Surigao Strait to engage Kurita’s force decisively. The ammunition you count after the fact doesn’t change the fact that Oldendorf still reported to Halsey he was low on ammunition. Now, if this is a mistake, it may be that Oldendorf’s sailors would have corrected it when engaging Kurita, but, maybe not. Whatever reasons Oldendorf had for thinking he was out of ammunition may have continued through the battle, or maybe they’d have discovered ammunition if indeed there’s a mistake. nevertheless, the confusion during the heat of battle is a much different than a leisurely accounting afterwards. the effect of ammunition you don’t know you have is exactly the same as no ammunition. > [@Dissonance](#): > > Funny, I’m reading the one that says an aircraft carrier and a battleship decide to open battle at under 20,000 yards; first with no planes at all and then no planes in the air. Both conditions qualify as having planes under poor command. No matter how much you argue, I will never agree that no planes=planes with fucked up command. Sounds like you have read one book and one book alone and are utterly unaware that a large number of sources vary on the details of what happened at Leyte Gulf. I’ve read more than a half-dozen accounts. Go back and read the links I provided. It’s NOT “my opinion” that Kurita turned around because he thought he was about to engage Halsey full-on. It’s a FACT. Now change that fact to Kurita KNOWING that the Taffies had done all they could do, and even though he has had SOME losses (Yes, losing three cruisers but leaving five cruisers and four battleships is “SOME losses”) he will look and say, “even though I have lost three cruisers, I still have five cruisers and four battleships.” ESPECIALLY considering the IJN had given him orders for a do-or-die, last-chance, this-is-it, no-point-in-even-having-a-navy-if-we-lose mission. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/72 "2012-05-29T20:16:24Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > **David42** , you’ve just had your head handed to you. > Time to take a rest. Or perhaps you don’t know much about Leyte Gulf, either. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/73 "2012-05-29T20:29:46Z")
Watching you be proven wrong over and over on multiple points is pretty convincing. But by all means, keep plugging away. When you’re in a hole the best thing to do is dig with all your might. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/74 "2012-05-29T20:34:01Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Talking about lines at the liquor store? 😛 Conversations? ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/75 "2012-05-29T21:58:20Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Watching you be proven wrong over and over on multiple points is pretty convincing. But by all means, keep plugging away. When you’re in a hole the best thing to do is dig with all your might. There hasn’t been jack here to prove that Kurita didn’t turn around because he thought he was looking at Halsey instead of the jeep carriers. The idea that losing three cruisers out of 8 and having all 4 batleships intact is anything more than moderate losses, with a more than adequate amount of firepower remaining–Kurita still had more than he had lost. There hasn’t been jack here to prove that Kurita couldn’t have prevailed over the Taffies. With what little appropriate ordnance they had gone, unarmored jeep carriers don’t stand a chance against the lieks of Yamato. The proof that there were a few torpedoes somehow gets transformed into capital ships full of torpedoes in your mind. Why would Sprague beg Halsey for help if the 16 Taffy carriers were the right weapon against Kurita? WTF? Halsey only had twelve carriers. (Note, Sprague did not beg Oldendorf for help. Why does a guy with 16 carriers call for help from a guy with only 12? There hasn’t been jack here to prove that Oldendorf would have beaten Kurita. As I pointed out, unknown ammunition doesn’t get fired, either. it’s nothing but speculation that the problem would have been figured out. And no-one explains how three battleships that can’t hit targets contribute to his “overwhelming” forces, and no discussion of just how much it takes to sink a Yamato class ship, other than some manipulative labeling such as “Yamato envy.” ---
**Author:** ![AncientHumanoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ancienthumanoid/32/278_2.png) [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/76 "2012-05-29T22:08:57Z")
Sounds like we need a TARDIS! ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/77 "2012-05-30T03:10:31Z")
> [@David42](#): > > A semantic quibble. A note for posterity: here, the destroyers sank three cruisers. You clearly can’t read. I suggest you read the part you reponded to, slowly this time if you need to. _Suzuya_ and _Chikuma_ were sunk by air attack, and air attack contributed to the sinking of _Chokai_. I don’t know how you can have missed that fact, I even bolded the relevant parts for you. > [@](#): > > Having an odd torpedo or two around doesn’t change the fact that most of the Taffys’ planes did not have the right ordnance. What exactly was their mission, here, support the invasion, or seek and destroy the IJN? This is simply beyond stupid and you are clearly debating in bad faith. They didn’t have an odd torpedo or two; they scored numerous torpedo hits. That you can read of repeated torpedo runs by TBM Avengers from the escort carriers and still insist that plane from the escort carriers weren’t armed for anti-ship action, didn’t have the right ordnance and say they didn’t sink heavy cruisers with the words right there in black and white in front of you is demonstably debating in bad faith. > [@](#): > > My claim is not that no escort carrier could ever have an anti-ship role. My point is, if Kurita KNEW that the Taffies did not have a BUNCH MORE torpedoes (they didn’t–are you hand-waving the fact that most hadn’t the proper ordnance?) My point is about how ON THIS MISSION, they weren’t loaded with torpedoes and armor piercing bombs like Halsey was, whose mission was indeed the seek and destroy which you seem to think the Taffies also were doing. It’s obvious to anyone reading what you’ve written that you are seeking to rewrite what you actually said, which was that they had no torpedoes, ineffective bombs and some had only depth charges or even just machine guns. You clearly have little understanding of naval combat in WW2. Pay particular attention to the _Suzuya_ on your re-read and notice that she was crippled not by penetrating bomb hits or torpedoes, she was crippled by near misses from bombs. Bombs that didn’t even hit her, much less penetrate her deck. _Chokai_ had her machine room destroyed and had uncontrollable fires started by one bomb hit. You may also want to look at the fate of the battleship _Hiei_ in 1942 off of Guadalcanal, where she was left badly flooded, aflame, barely able to keep moving and only able to steam in slow circles as she had lost rudder control while in action with US cruisers and destroyers despite none of the American ships having AP shells that were remotely close to being able to penetrate her main belt. > [@](#): > > Oldendorf had three effective battleships, and whether the accountants found some ammunition later or not, believed he was almost out. This again is flatly entirely false. How you are able to change three battleships getting effective fire control solutions at night from radar to be able to pummel the _Yamashiro_ and _Mogami_ with complete impunity while three had trouble getting a proper solution from radar alone before the fight was over into Oldendorf only having three effective battleships is beyond any reason. The _Yamashiro_ was unable to even return fire. How you imagine Oldendorf was unaware of his own ammunition situation and it was only discovered later by accountants that shells wieghing close to a ton each had been hiding is simply bizarre. > [@](#): > > I’ve cited this before, why not read it? then you might realize I am not arguing my opinion about it, but FACTS. Clearly, you aren’t even reading or are unable to understand your own cites. Again, it’s flat out amazing that you’re trying to use the vastly superior radar direction on Oldendorf’s ships compared to the gunnery direction on Japanese battleships and call it a negative. _Yamashiro_ was unable to even reply to the avalanche of shells coming from Oldendorf’s battleline. > [@](#): > > And if Kurita had decided to hang around and called in air strikes to assist him, as was the plan? Simply assume I’m staring blankly in response to this. It’s simply so absurd there isn’t a proper response. > [@](#): > > No matter how much you argue, I will never agree that no planes=planes with fucked up command. I guess you missed the part where it was also asked about planes, but none in the air. In any event, how an aircraft carrier letting a battleship within 20,000 yards of it with no embarked air group doesn’t qualify as fucked up aircraft command on the part of the carrier is beyond me. > [@](#): > > Sounds like you have read one book and one book alone and are utterly unaware that a large number of sources vary on the details of what happened at Leyte Gulf. I’ve read more than a half-dozen accounts. Non sequitor. You’ve also provided no cites other than Wiki, and have apparently not even read them very well as they contradict your claims, not back them up. That you try to dismiss S. E. Morison as one book is very indicative of your understanding of the subject matter as well. For the record I’ve read enough books on the Pacific theatre in WW2 to make baby Jesus cry. Here’s a [link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Eliot_Morison#The_war_years_and_military_service_.281942-1952.29) for you on who S. E. Morison was: > [@](#): > > In 1942, Morison met with his friend President Franklin D. Roosevelt and offered to write a history of United States Navy operations during the war from an insider’s perspective by taking part in operations and documenting them. The President and Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox agreed to the proposal. On May 5, 1942, Morison was commissioned Lieutenant Commander, US Naval Reserve, and was called at once to active duty.[1] The result of Morison’s proposal was the History of United States Naval Operations in World War II, published in 15 volumes between 1947–1962, documenting everything from strategy and tactics to technology and the exploits of individuals—a work which British military historian Sir John Keegan has called the best to come out of that conflict. The fifteen volumes are the quasi-official history of the US Navy in WW2, analogous to the US Army Historical Division’s ‘Green Books.’ > [@David42](#): > > Or perhaps you don’t know much about Leyte Gulf, either. The irony, it burns. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/78 "2012-05-30T04:37:20Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > You clearly can’t read. I suggest you read the part you reponded to, slowly this time if you need to. _Suzuya_ and _Chikuma_ were sunk by air attack, and air attack contributed to the sinking of _Chokai_. I don’t know how you can have missed that fact, I even bolded the relevant parts for you. > > This is simply beyond stupid and you are clearly debating in bad faith. They didn’t have an odd torpedo or two; they scored numerous torpedo hits. That you can read of repeated torpedo runs by TBM Avengers from the escort carriers and still insist that plane from the escort carriers weren’t armed for anti-ship action, didn’t have the right ordnance and say they didn’t sink heavy cruisers with the words right there in black and white in front of you is demonstably debating in bad faith. > > It’s obvious to anyone reading what you’ve written that you are seeking to rewrite what you actually said, which was that they had no torpedoes, ineffective bombs and some had only depth charges or even just machine guns. You clearly have little understanding of naval combat in WW2. Pay particular attention to the _Suzuya_ on your re-read and notice that she was crippled not by penetrating bomb hits or torpedoes, she was crippled by near misses from bombs. Bombs that didn’t even hit her, much less penetrate her deck. _Chokai_ had her machine room destroyed and had uncontrollable fires started by one bomb hit. You may also want to look at the fate of the battleship _Hiei_ in 1942 off of Guadalcanal, where she was left badly flooded, aflame, barely able to keep moving and only able to steam in slow circles as she had lost rudder control while in action with US cruisers and destroyers despite none of the American ships having AP shells that were remotely close to being able to penetrate her main belt. > > This again is flatly entirely false. How you are able to change three battleships getting effective fire control solutions at night from radar to be able to pummel the _Yamashiro_ and _Mogami_ with complete impunity while three had trouble getting a proper solution from radar alone before the fight was over into Oldendorf only having three effective battleships is beyond any reason. The _Yamashiro_ was unable to even return fire. How you imagine Oldendorf was unaware of his own ammunition situation and it was only discovered later by accountants that shells wieghing close to a ton each had been hiding is simply bizarre. > > Clearly, you aren’t even reading or are unable to understand your own cites. Again, it’s flat out amazing that you’re trying to use the vastly superior radar direction on Oldendorf’s ships compared to the gunnery direction on Japanese battleships and call it a negative. _Yamashiro_ was unable to even reply to the avalanche of shells coming from Oldendorf’s battleline. > > Simply assume I’m staring blankly in response to this. It’s simply so absurd there isn’t a proper response. > > I guess you missed the part where it was also asked about planes, but none in the air. In any event, how an aircraft carrier letting a battleship within 20,000 yards of it with no embarked air group doesn’t qualify as fucked up aircraft command on the part of the carrier is beyond me. > > Non sequitor. You’ve also provided no cites other than Wiki, and have apparently not even read them very well as they contradict your claims, not back them up. That you try to dismiss S. E. Morison as one book is very indicative of your understanding of the subject matter as well. For the record I’ve read enough books on the Pacific theatre in WW2 to make baby Jesus cry. Here’s a [link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Eliot_Morison#The_war_years_and_military_service_.281942-1952.29) for you on who S. E. Morison was:The fifteen volumes are the quasi-official history of the US Navy in WW2, analogous to the US Army Historical Division’s ‘Green Books.’ > > The irony, it burns. You’re getting close to the point of not even attempting to reason. I cited to Halsey’s article. Halsey says Oldendorf had reported he was low on ammunition. You say I have only cited wikipedia, then say I did not read the article, even though you dismiss the article when it says that Kurita turned around because he thought the Taffies were instead Halsey. You don’t address my cites; why should I go on finding others when you don’t even appear to see them? OTHER BOOKS say the torpedoes Kurita faced were launched by the destroyers. Address WIkipedia’s claim, address Halsey’s claim, and above all, stop impugning my motives as bad faith, which is coming awful close to calling me a liar, and I may give you a cite. But not when you dismiss the other cites I give without discussion and without addressing why these sources contradict you. Why did Halsey say that Oldendorf reported being low on ammunition? And why is Morison in a better position than Halsey to know what Oldendorf thought? And why, after two days of shelling the beaches and then a fire fight with the southern force, wouldn’t Oldendorf think he might be getting low? I mean you are touting Morison as an insider and dismissing Halsey. DId Halsey recieve the message that Oldendorf was low on ammunition, or not, and if he didn’t, why did he say he did? Well, I have cited two sources that contradict you, and you just stick to Morison. Cite another source that Kurita didn’t make the mistake of thinking the Taffies were Halsey and that Oldendorf didn’t think he was low on ammunition. And explain why Sprague sent the calls to Halsey for help instead of “No problem, we got this,” like you seem to want to claim. Why did the guy with 16 “anti-ship” carriers call on the guy with 12 carriers so desperately? Because he thought Task Force 34 was nearby? Why was Task Force 34 supposed to be nearby in Kinkaid’s thinking? Surely not to guard these 16 aircraft carriers so effective on an antiship mission; I mean, you have the guards being less powerful than the guarded, here. I will toelrate no further abuse here along the lines of “arguing in bad faith.” Address my points. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/79 "2012-05-30T05:34:23Z")
This thread was light and amusing. Now it’s dark and mean. ---
**Author:** ![Rhaegar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Rhaegar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhaegar)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/80 "2012-05-30T05:46:53Z")
An aircraft carrier without aircraft isn’t going to be good for much, but with the aircraft, the carrier is a devastating weapon. For a battleship to be effective, it has to be close enough to a target to hit it with shells, whereas an aircraft carrier can be miles and miles away and deal its damage through its planes. With the advent of anti-ship missiles the battleship is also much more vulnerable than before as well. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099.md?page=5)