# Best Battleship Type **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [January 26, 2016, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-battleship-type/744253 "2016-01-26T11:04:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2016, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-battleship-type/744253/41 "2016-01-29T02:40:35Z")
> [@lisiate](#): > > Baltic fleet. Strictly speaking, it was the Second Pacific Squadron. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2016, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-battleship-type/744253/42 "2016-01-29T02:56:45Z")
I started something, God bless Nicholas II. ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2016, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-battleship-type/744253/43 "2016-01-29T03:19:47Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > If “best” means most theoretically capable, regardless of actual battle results, then the latest and greatest design is almost always the winner. Since they aren’t being built anymore ( **Ranchoth** ’s silly thread [How might you build an "updated" Iowa class battleship, today? - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=773804) notwithstanding) the last design is probable the best. That’s Iowa as so many have already said. > > My point is that it’s best simply by being newest, not by being inherently bestest. Had history been different the Japanese or Russians or Germans or Brits may well have built something much better in the 1950s. Which would have in turn been leapfrogged in the 1960s. > > The Iowa class is simply when the music stopped for battleships. In a sense, that’s a win by luck, not skill. > I agree with **casdave** that these specifications dick-waving contests are the usual armchair fanboy way to talk about weapon systems (or cars, guns, supermodels, etc.) but it’s grossly misleading and amateurish as military analysis. > > IMO the “best” battleship is the one that did the most good in its time to advance its country’s agenda at the least cost in blood and treasure. > > I am not enough of a naval historian to answer that question. But I think that is not merely the proper question to ask, but really the only interesting question to ask. Otherwise, for almost any technological topic the answer to “which is best?” can be answered “Whichever is newest.” > > Here’s an anecdote to support my point. Last weekend the last flying B-17 & B-24 happened to be at my nearby airport. Wife and I took the tour, crawling through the fuselages of both. I grew up going to warbird airshows and my wife was USAF too. We’d both seen plenty of WWII warbirds & later warplanes over the years. Still the tour and conversation was sobering to say the least. > > I compared the B-17, heavy bomber \*extraordinaire \*of its era, to the F-16, a small lightweight fighter by modern standards. The F-16 can carry 4x the bombs, 3x as far, 4x as fast, deliver them with 100x the (unguided) accuracy, and expose 1/10th the number of men to danger. > > Is the F-16 a “better” bomber than the B-17? Or just a newer one? I agree with all of this. EXCEPT, and I know this goes a bit (or totally) off topic, how do you feel about the f-35 vs. f-16/f-15? I know out there in interwebland there is much f-35 hate…You seem like a better source on the subject than much of the crap questionable crap I’ve read elsewhere… ---
**Author:** ![OttoDaFe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ottodafe/32/356_2.png) [@OttoDaFe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OttoDaFe)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2016, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-battleship-type/744253/44 "2016-01-29T06:43:19Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > What was that? > > I would think the Japanese battleships that destroyed the Black Sea Fleet. _Washington v Kirishima_, [Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Battle_of_Guadalcanal#Second_Naval_Battle_of_Guadalcanal.2C_14.E2.80.9315_November). The action also involved the _South Dakota_, but she was ineffective because a) some nimrod in the engineering division tied down her circuit breakers, resulting in a loss of electric power to critical systems, and b) she got silhouetted against a burning destroyer and pretty seriously shot up. (Nitpick: the “Rusty W” was the second — and last — _North Carolina_ class battleship.) ---
**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:** [January 29, 2016, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-battleship-type/744253/45 "2016-01-29T07:44:35Z")
Oh, yeah. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2016, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-battleship-type/744253/46 "2016-01-29T23:34:56Z")
> [@snfaulkner](#): > > I agree with all of this. EXCEPT, and I know this goes a bit (or totally) off topic, how do you feel about the f-35 vs. f-16/f-15? I know out there in interwebland there is much f-35 hate…You seem like a better source on the subject than much of the crap questionable crap I’ve read elsewhere… [hijack] All I know about F-35 is what’s in the trade press. Having said that, F-35 represents a design where an awful lot of aerodynamic performance and weapons tonnage was sacrificed for stealth. IMO there are three hostile environments out there: A) ones where stealth is nice to have; B) where stealth is need to have; and C) where stealth isn’t good enough and you’re still dead. The F-15 (including E model Strike Eagle), F-16, and F/A-18 are all limited to first (A) environment. They’ll be dead promptly in B or C. USAF bet the farm that there will be almost no place on Earth like C. Maybe over the capital city of a peer adversary, but probably not even there. They’re assuming most battles worth fighting will be (B), wherein the pre-stealth aircraft simply cannot participate and live. If that bet holds true for the 40+ years the F-35 is supposed to be in the fleet it’ll be an excellent tradeoff, since the other aircraft would be utterly useless in such a battle. If stealth gets fuxxored in 10 years all the compromises and expenses will be, if not for naught, at least for darn little benefit. A related assumption is that they can use F-35 and other means to degrade B-quality enemy air defense into scenario A soon enough to affect the course of the war. Then they can use the greater volume of older aircraft effectively to quickly carry the necessary weapons tonnage to the enemy. Yet that level of robust & persistent air defense suppression has not proven do-able in any aerial war yet since the invention of the aeroplane. USAF (& USN) have the problem that they have to plan to fight so-called near-peers like China, or Russia, and second-raters like, say, Iran, and third raters like, say, Bulgaria, and total air-nobodies like, say, Cuba or ISIS. What it takes to successfully prosecute the first scenario is far more expensive than what it takes to prosecute the fourth. But we can’t simply decide the first scenario is too expensive or doesn’t seem imminent so we’ll just ignore it. [/hijack] ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-battleship-type/744253/47 "2016-02-02T16:47:43Z")
Oh jeez… not this airplane/stealth crap again. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-battleship-type/744253/48 "2016-02-02T17:14:56Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Oh jeez… not this airplane/stealth crap again. Thanks for bumping the thread, **bump**. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Spiny\_Norman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@Spiny\_Norman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiny_Norman)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-battleship-type/744253/49 "2016-02-02T21:54:34Z")
> [@casdave](#): > > I would have thought that the metric would be how effective a particular vessel had been operationally. A metric, certainly, but is it sound? If a given class of battleship was fearsome enough to change the enemy’s dispositions just by existing, I don’t see how we can ignore it because it didn’t see battle. > [@](#): > > In fact you can effectively rule out almost all the German warships except, and oddly enough, Tirpitz which had a strategic effect far beyond its actual operational use. Something like that, yes. I guess “best” depends on whether you’re commanding a battleship, a fleet, or a nation’s armed forces. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-battleship-type/744253/50 "2016-02-03T01:11:11Z")
> [@Spiny\_Norman](#): > > A metric, certainly, but is it sound? If a given class of battleship was fearsome enough to change the enemy’s dispositions just by existing, I don’t see how we can ignore it because it didn’t see battle. Historically speaking, that’s most of what most battleships accomplished in the 20th century. They were a strategic deterrent, and costly enough to discourage their being used willy-nilly. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-battleship-type/744253/51 "2016-02-03T02:03:52Z")
Yes. The “Fleet in being” doctrine from the late 19th century is a lot like SAC’s 1950s/60s motto of “Peace is our profession”. And the SSBNs coming along a bit later. Their mere fearsome existence caused a lot of enemy action to simply not happen. I wasn’t in the strategic forces, but a common refrain by those folks and their leaders was along the lines of “If we ever have to use this stuff for real then we’ve failed in our primary duty.” ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-battleship-type/744253/52 "2016-02-03T03:14:21Z")
I don’t agree. Mahan’s _Fleet in Being_ theoretically existed during time of war. For example, during WWII when the United States had a single aircraft carrier. The Japanese didn’t know when it would show up while they were refueling, loading stores or covering a landing. SAC existed to be able to immediately strike against the Soviet Union should they attack the United States. It was a constant, immediate, obvious presence of overwhelming force, rather than a small stealth force attacking at an unknown and dangerous time. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-battleship-type/744253/53 "2016-02-03T14:48:17Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > I don’t agree. Mahan’s _Fleet in Being_ theoretically existed during time of war. For example, during WWII when the United States had a single aircraft carrier. The Japanese didn’t know when it would show up while they were refueling, loading stores or covering a landing. > SAC existed to be able to immediately strike against the Soviet Union should they attack the United States. It was a constant, immediate, obvious presence of overwhelming force, rather than a small stealth force attacking at an unknown and dangerous time. Fleet-in-being = force-in-being. The basic concept is that the enemy has a force available that essentially constrains your ability to achieve your strategic goals without necessarily having to fight. A perfect example is the German High Seas Fleet in WWI - for most of the time that it existed, it sat around in Wilhelmshaven and didn’t do anything. But it was powerful enough to be such a threat in case it was to move, that the British shaped a lot of their strategy and resources to guard against it. It’s more of a wartime concept; in peacetime, the only real consideration would be where it is / what it’s effects might be IF the shooting starts. The Soviet Northern Fleet is a good example, I think. It’s presence up around Severomorsk meant that NATO spent a huge amount of resources aiming to protect convoys and unarmed shipping traveling to Europe from it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-battleship-type/744253.md?page=2)