# 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:** 15\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![the\_diego](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7bcc69/32.png) [@the\_diego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_diego)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2012, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/141 "2012-10-09T08:40:40Z")
Up to perhaps the 60s, the power projection issue by naval units was not clearly settled. The battleship was still there, waiting for missions. Between this time and August 1945, the carrier’s prominence was due to only one thing: lower operating and personnel costs compared with a battleship. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2012, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/142 "2012-10-09T08:46:34Z")
Tell that to the Yamato. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Slant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c57346/32.png) [@Mr.Slant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Slant)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2012, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/143 "2012-10-09T13:26:47Z")
> [@the\_diego](#): > > Up to perhaps the 60s, the power projection issue by naval units was not clearly settled. The battleship was still there, waiting for missions. Between this time and August 1945, the carrier’s prominence was due to only one thing: lower operating and personnel costs compared with a battleship. How the heck could that be? Battleship has way less moving parts once you include the complexity of the aircraft. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2012, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/144 "2012-10-09T14:13:26Z")
> [@Mr.Slant](#): > > How the heck could that be? > Battleship has way less moving parts once you include the complexity of the aircraft. But more lions. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2012, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/145 "2012-10-09T14:19:48Z")
> [@the\_diego](#): > > Up to perhaps the 60s, the power projection issue by naval units was not clearly settled. The battleship was still there, waiting for missions. Between this time and August 1945, the carrier’s prominence was due to only one thing: lower operating and personnel costs compared with a battleship. Complete nonsense. Carriers had far larger crews than battleships. According to Wiki, the [USS Enterprise](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CV-6)) had more than double the crew (5,828) of a Missouri class battleship (2,700). Even the [USS Midway](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Midway_(CV-41)), non-nuclear and commissioned in 1945, had a much larger crew (4,100). Maintaining and operating a carrier and it weapons (aircraft) costs many times more than a battleship. Carriers’ prominence was due to the fact that they could project power over hundreds of miles rather than just a couple of dozen miles. ---
**Author:** ![Kenm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bc79bd/32.png) [@Kenm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kenm)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2012, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/146 "2012-10-09T16:02:57Z")
I envisage an alternative reality in which atomic power was invented by Hero who coupled it to his steam engine, which was developed further by later Greeks who, using nuclear-powered triremes, defeated Rome, though it was a close call thanks to the Romans’ lions. Strangely, neither side had aircraft carriers, nuclear or rowed, as each considered flight impossible. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2012, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/147 "2012-10-09T22:58:00Z")
> [@the\_diego](#): > > Up to perhaps the 60s, the power projection issue by naval units was not clearly settled. The battleship was still there, waiting for missions. Between this time and August 1945, the carrier’s prominence was due to only one thing: lower operating and personnel costs compared with a battleship. I’ve got a pet peeve about statements such as the aircraft carrier made the battleship obsolete in WW2 and I’ve made a lot of longwinded posts noting amongst other things that more battleships of the IJN were sunk in surface action than to aircraft, that there were a great many more surface actions in the Pacific than carrier duels, to say nothing of the amount of surface actions in the Atlantic where only the allies had carriers, and as an example of the vulnerability of carriers to loss that for a time after the [Battle of Santa Cruz](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Santa_Cruz_Islands) the US Navy had only one carrier, the damaged _Enterprise_, available in the entire Pacific. However, it is beyond argument that the battleship had lost its throne as the queen of the seas to the aircraft carrier in WW2. Battleships weren’t obsolete, but they were no longer the most important ship in deciding who controlled the seas. That position now belonged to the aircraft carrier. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Slant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c57346/32.png) [@Mr.Slant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Slant)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2012, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/148 "2012-10-09T23:24:17Z")
**Dissonance** , I don’t really think that people mean that the battleships were wholly and completely obsolete. Of course a battleship could still make a difference during WWII-era conflicts. I think they mean that the sun was setting on them; until the guided missile cruiser and similar vessels came into play, there was still a ton of use for them. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/149 "2012-10-10T06:32:47Z")
> [@Mr.Slant](#): > > **Dissonance** , I don’t really think that people mean that the battleships were wholly and completely obsolete. You’d be surprised.🙂 Of course this isn’t the case, but I’ve run across people who really do mean just that more than a few times. Sometimes it’s just lack of knowledge on the subject, but sometimes it’s like George Carlin said, think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. ---
**Author:** ![the\_diego](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7bcc69/32.png) [@the\_diego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_diego)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/150 "2012-10-10T09:02:53Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Complete nonsense. Carriers had far larger crews than battleships. According to Wiki, the [USS Enterprise](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CV-6)) had more than double the crew (5,828) of a Missouri class battleship (2,700). Even the [USS Midway](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Midway_(CV-41)), non-nuclear and commissioned in 1945, had a much larger crew (4,100). Maintaining and operating a carrier and it weapons (aircraft) costs many times more than a battleship. > > Carriers’ prominence was due to the fact that they could project power over hundreds of miles rather than just a couple of dozen miles. Point taken regarding personnel. Now consider this: a shore bombardment mission. A battleship and a carrier start from the same point. Who has to travel 380 miles more to get to the target? assume carrier planes’ combat radius is 400 mi and the battleship’s guns can reach 20 mi. Note that battleships tend to be heavier and ride lower in the water so they tend to use up more fuel for a given speed. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/151 "2012-10-10T09:20:21Z")
I guess we need to see a comparison between amounts and prices of diesel and aircraft fuel to decide. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Slant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c57346/32.png) [@Mr.Slant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Slant)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/152 "2012-10-10T15:08:43Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > You’d be surprised.🙂 Of course this isn’t the case, but I’ve run across people who really do mean just that more than a few times. Sometimes it’s just lack of knowledge on the subject, but sometimes it’s like George Carlin said, think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. Fair. In fact, in their final iteration, with missile launchers bolted on deck, they’re still very useful, just a costly way to deliver something a cruiser is better at delivering. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/153 "2012-10-10T15:39:32Z")
> [@the\_diego](#): > > Point taken regarding personnel. Now consider this: a shore bombardment mission. A battleship and a carrier start from the same point. Who has to travel 380 miles more to get to the target? assume carrier planes’ combat radius is 400 mi and the battleship’s guns can reach 20 mi. Note that battleships tend to be heavier and ride lower in the water so they tend to use up more fuel for a given speed. What does this? Your claim was that carriers were cheaper than battleships. So what if a carrier had to go less distance than the battleship to attack? It still had to send a bunch of planes the same distance, each of them burning tons of fuel. I don’t have stats, but I’d bet aircraft bombs are more expensive than battleship shells, and I would bet a lot more money that aircraft guided missiles are MUCH more expensive than battleship shells. Also, if you look at the stats of the Midway and Missouri, they weighed the same 45,000 tons. By the time the Midway was retired, it weighed 74,000 tons, so all else being equal it would have burned fuel at the same rate, and later a significantly higher rate than any battleship. Of course that’s only a guess, because a lot would depend on hull design. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/154 "2012-10-10T15:44:26Z")
Oh, and still another thing about carrier v battleship fuel efficiency. A battleship can theoretically just stop when it gets in range of its targets (not saying it would be safe to do so, but being stopped wouldn’t be an operational problem). A carrier, however, needs to be on the move constantly during air operations, to provide wind over the bow so planes can take off and land at safe speeds. So if it’s maintaining a “position” for ongoing ops, as was common in ongoing conflict, it needed to be constantly following a “racetrack” course – a long ellipse, constantly burning fuel, moving into the wind and then racing back to a starting point so it can turn back into the wind to launch and land planes again. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/155 "2012-10-10T19:03:16Z")
I don’t understand what kind of light the question sheds. It’s a bit like, throw a cat and a shark in the water: who wins? A battleship would never get within 10 miles of a carrier that had planes to deploy. A carrier without planes is like a cat tossed into the deep end. WWII conclusively proved the power and flexibility of a carrier group. Remove the group and the planes and you have useless steel. BTW, a battleship isn’t intended to fight other ships anyway. It’s intended to pound the land. The OP is completely irrelevant to anything resembling a military question. As food for thought, it’s a bit of a marshmallow: tasty when roasted. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099.md?page=7)