We all know how World War II heralded the end of the battleship; the pacific was dominated by carrier groups, in the Atlantic the Germans used their few battleships as commerce raiders.
Battleships lingered as long as they did out of tradition, since some navies took a while to understand the effectiveness of carriers (and also submarines).
I’m curious how much longer Battleships could have perservered in an enviroment that neglected naval aviation. Maybe carriers exist in this alternate timeline, but are relegated to duties like anti-submarine work and scouting. Or maybe aireal search radar and radar-fuzed antiaircraft shells get developed much earlier and ships are better protected against air attacks.
From WWI to WWII battleships made quantum leaps in range, accuracy, speed, and protection. How far could it go? Would battleships eventually hit an efficiency equilibrium the way Main Battle Tanks do now? (~60 tons, similar armor layouts, similar gun). Or would things more or less stay at Iowa-class levels until things like missiles/nuclear submarines get developed?
We saw it historically in the Med. The British had neglected naval aviation, has less impressive BB’s then the Italians, yet battles like Matapan showed that aircraft carriers were descive. You had Fairy Sowrdfish planes sinking three Italian BB’s, granted at anchor.
For battleships to continue to dominate, well once there were aircraft they were going to be naval aircraft, it was inevitable, in an era when all nations required sea lanes to remain open.
They were of huge help in supporting landings. Planes have a relatively short amount of time they can be present over the battlefield. Battleships could pound away for days at a time.
They also had the best hospitals on board and substantial machine shops which could fabricate material necessary for repairs on the spot.
Even after WWII they were scary machines. IIRC during the Korean war, where massive bombing campaigns failed to bring the North to the negotiating table, the mere presence of battleships did.
Even in Desert Storm (first one) there was an instance of Iraqis surrendering to a drone used for spotting for the battleship. All the bombing didn’t have that effect but apparently being shelled by a battleship is a new level of scary and the Iraqi soldiers wanted none of it.
If carriers had not supplanted them for naval warfare I am not sure how the battleship would have managed. While battleships were incredibly powerful and fast ships they were also colossally expensive ships. It was rare to throw them into ship-vs-ship engagements. They are just far too valuable to risk lightly. It happened of course but that role fell more to cruisers and destroyers.
The US did have plans for the Montana Class of battleships to replace the Iowa Class. They were bigger, better gunned and batter armored than the Iowa Class (also slower). None were ever built but in the OP hypothetical they probably would have been.
Ever since guiding missiles came along, the advantage has been with more but smaller ships. A bigger ship can have more missile launchers and more watertight compartments, but unlike with gunfire, everybody has the same range.
What you’re really asking is, “What would have happened if military aviation hadn’t developed?” Because once it did, the end of the battleship as anything as other than a bombardment platform was pretty much inevitable. It’s hard to imagine that aircraft could have stayed in a non-combatant role – as strictly observation and reconnaissance planes. Think about it – in war, everybody tries sticking guns on every type of vehicle which can support one.
IMO, WWII was already too late for that. Billy Mitchell started sinking battleships with planes in 1920.
But within the limitations of the OP, what would have happened with battleships is more of what had already been happening – a competition between between armor and warheads. IMO, warheads would have won, because it’s a LOT cheaper to reload the ships’ magazines with more powerful shells than to retrofit a ship’s armor.
So the battleships would be lost, first to each other, and later to smaller ships with more effective weapons.
If the Manhattan Project never happened and all that research went instead into laser weapons, maybe you’d have floating death ray laser fortresses instead. Or if they simply developed CIWS sooner. Or sea-to-air missiles.
But that doesn’t really make sense. Military technology evolves according to present needs and expected threats. If you go down one line of research instead of another, your enemies likely will focus their efforts on countering that, too. Invest in planes, they do too; invest in battleships, they invest in better submarines; or you get radar, they get stealth, etc. There would’ve been no reason to develop better anti-aircraft weapons and techniques until aircraft became a greater threat. Similarly, fleets changed as threats changed.
Battleships (and tanks, for that matter) were superseded by better combined-arms tactics, not just by bigger, badder battleships. MBTs don’t keep growing because there’s no reason for them to. There were bigger tanks in the past, but now in a modern battlefield they’d just be more vulnerable to aerial attacks. Instead, development went towards ensuring air domination before the MBTs ever made landfall, and when finally deployed, the tanks would be supported by infantry, other fighting vehicles, aerial reconnaissance and ground assault aircraft – together, they are much more effective than, say, a MBT with twice the armor and twice the firepower that’s still vulnerable to top-down attacks or a clever infantry squad.
If two countries ignored external developments and kept developing battleships regardless, they’d just be making themselves vulnerable to a third country that fought smarter. Even discounting aviation, the ever-looming threat of giant battleships would compel enemies to seriously develop anti-ship warfare, and it wouldn’t be long until somebody figured out that a squad of submarines/nuclear weapons/kamikaze dolphins/stealth technology/etc. would be more advantageous
Battleships may one day make a resurgence if/when naval railguns require massive platforms, but even then, we’ve learned that a well-balanced fleet capable of handling different threat types would generally fare better. Arms races aren’t just about my ship vs your ship, but my whole force vs your whole force… and where technological shortcuts exist or are thought to exist, rest assured that they will be sought after much more than a merely-incremental inch or ten of armor.
The Royal Navy had several carriers, but the planes they flew from them were obsolete, due to a lack of funds. They were still flying biplanes such as the Fairey Swordfish in the early years of WW2. To give you some idea of what it was like to fight in these machines, IIRC the Bismarck attack was carried out into a strong headwind, cutting the approach speed to something like 70 mph. That’s only about double Bismarck’s top speed. Also, they had no fighters that could compete with land based aircraft. The Fairey Fulmar’s top speed was only 270 mph. Despite these limitations, they proved capable of attacking battleships at sea. In addition to the Bismarck attack, at the Battle of Cape Matapan, a handful of aircraft seriously damaged an Italian battleship, and crippled a cruiser.
The above shows that battleships could not operate effectively even against poorly developed naval aviation. These attacks were carried out in slow planes, with short ranged (1,500 yard) torpedoes, and in small numbers. These weren’t the massed air attacks of the pacific, at Matapan the Italians had more ships than the British had planes attacking them at once. This combination gave the AA defences the best possible chance of shooting down the attackers, but they were still unable to defend themselves. Even the largest battleships were vulnerable to torpedoes, which could be set to impact below the armoured belt. Bulged hulls and crushable structures limited the damage, but could not prevent flooding of the damaged compartment, and propellers and rudders were vulnerable. Nor was it possible to provide enough deck armour to fully protect against aerial bombs.
In the complete absence of naval aviation, battleships would have escalated in size, until economics or some other practical limitation intervened (the Yamatos were too large to use many anchorages, which limited where they could be deployed). Each new generation of ships with larger guns and heavier armour would make the previous one obsolete. This is what happened before and after WW1, dreadnaughts were armed with 12", 13.5", 14", 15" then 16" guns. The Royal Navy constructed an 18" gun back in 1918, and had plans to fit them to the N3 battleships, until they were cancelled under the terms of the Washington treaty, negotiated to prevent the ruinous expense of another battleship arms race.
battleships continued to be priority capital ships even after japan surrendered. the last major engagement (leyte) put battleships in prominence ahead of carriers.
the main factor that led to battleship obsolescence was operating cost.
^
To further what Alka Seltzer says, the Mediterrainian theater had the aircraft carrier operating in an environment where every possible disadvantage that a Carrier can have, existed. The seas were shallow and narrow, they were within attacking range of land based aircraft at all times, the Italian peninsula pretty much bifurcates the Med in half leaving only narrow seas for communication purposes, and despite that the carriers dominated.
I don’t really think that sans aviation guns would become a big as they did, the larger ones needed spotter aircraft to target at extreme ranges.
Sorry, this is GQ, and that is utter nonsense. Leyte gulf proved conclusively that battleships could not operate effectively against carrier groups. The Musashi was sunk by air attack. At the Battle of Surigao Strait, one japanese battleship was sunk and the other was damaged by destroyer-launched torpedoes before the US battleships opened fire. It’s very doubtful that Yamashiro could have broken through to attack the invasion shipping even if they hadn’t been present. At the Battle off Samar, four japanese battleships and a heavy cruiser force surprised a group of escort carriers. Despite a large speed advantage, they failed to close the range and destroy them, under attack from aircraft and a handful of escort ships.
Cite please, why do you think battleships are more expensive to operate than carriers? Carriers have larger crews, and an expensive air wing.
I think there are a lot of incorrect statements floating around in this thread.
Battleships did cost a fortune- in WW1 quite a proportion of a developing countries Treasury but as status symbols they vied for them. However, there is no reason to think aircraft carriers would be any cheaper.
Even without air power, battleships were very dodgy conveyances when it was discovered it was not that difficult to sink them by letting water in below the waterline rather than pounding them with guns. Submarines and mines spring to mind.
The British were very much to the forefront in naval aviation- just the planes they had were not very good. IIRC the Japanese used a lot of the British theory - I’m not talking Taranto. Even though the Japanese did take note of the action the Pearl Harbour Plans had already been visualised at the time, if not finalised.
(Also it is bullshit about the loss of three Italian battleships at Matapan- they lost a few cruisers. I think there is confusion with Taranto where three Italian battleships were put out of action- one was never repaired.).
Finally, I think the effectiveness of large naval guns against military targets on the shore is being over emphasised. It is great if there is a direct line of fire, but if there is a hilly region (remember Gallipoli) plunging type fire from howitzers is required. The guns from several squadrons of dreadnoughts could not destroy some ancient Turkish batteries in the Dardenelles.
Developed countries too. The Yamatos cost Japan several percent of their GDP.
Well, planes are kind of important, but yes, the pilots were well trained. The Royal Navy developed night flying to a much higher degree than the USN and IJN, in an attempt to compensate for the deficiencies of their aircraft.
Indeed, naval bombardments were often described as “spectacular but ineffective”. When attacking soft targets, a large number of smaller guns is actually far more effective than a few large ones, as you get better coverage that way. Nor are battleship guns that effective at attacking fortifications, as they simply aren’t accurate enough to ensure direct hits. The tiny island of Iwo Jima was shelled for 3 days prior to invasion, yet this didn’t have a major impact on the japanese defence.
Nitpick - there was only one dreadnaught at the Dardenelles, and it was quickly withdrawn due to concerns over mines. Pre-dreadnaughts carried out most of the bombardment.
warning: this could be a long and boring exchange.
basic strategy of both sides.
japanese: lure the 3rd fleet away via decoy force and allow their battleships to sneak in and destroy the 7th fleet.
american: 3rd to shadow the 7th to protect it. if the japanese (battleships) show up, rush and destroy them (using battleships also.) might need a cite for that last one but halsey’s actions during the battle practically proved this.
the japanese had no choice but to use battleships. halsey had a choice. he clearly opted for battleships.
this brings us to the other thread. for the musashi, work the numbers in your head: 200+ attack planes hit the musashi, sinking it. how many planes did halsey’s carriers have? ~1,200 (almost half being fighter planes.) how many japanese battleships did they estimate were coming at them? 7. so if you were halsey, would you rely on carriers or battleships?
the musashi sinking was a tactical failure for american carriers. they didn’t spot all 5 BBs coming at the 7th and allowed them to slip out onto taffy3.
i don’t know how relevant your mention of the surigao straight battle was. battleships (for their type and capabilities) performed as expected, even better. the yamashiro and fuso were pre-washinton treaty BBs that were slow and fatigued. one torpedo at yamashiro broke it in half. the fuso managed to come out of the strait come morning, just when 4 battleships of the 7th were already in line formation. they broadsided fuso for one hour, each american BB firing at least 75 main battery shells. academic. maybe in the case of surigao, american carries would have done the same job but i’m referring to the 3rd fleet carriers, not the jury-rigged carriers of the 7th.
indecision in the part of the japanese commander. they could have loitered in the area and defeated anything the 7th fleet would have sent to them. they were in a hurry to leave.
given the same tasks? clues: a carrier’s guns don’t go past 25 miles. a carrier’s planes can go out 300 miles. that’s a 1,200% increase in travel distance. how heavy is a carrier? 18,000 t for a light carrier, 35,000 t up for a large fleet carrier. how heavy is a battleship? at least 40,000 t going up to 72,000 t. think of the horsepower and fuel requirements for the same speed and distance.
never knew. it definitely means battleship and, unlike carriers, there aren’t that many variants (light, escort, fleet attack.) one yahoo answer says it doesn’t stand for much, besides to make a person see in an instant that it’s a battleship. that same person suggested that BB is a battleship while BC is a battlecruiser. weh.
BB means Battleship, BC means Battlecruiser. Generally the designations repeat the letter if its a ‘default’ configuration (like DD for Destroyer, but DE for Destroyer-Escort). The breakdown is like this
I think Battleships would get to a point where past a certain tonnage, its not worth the cost vs having more smaller, faster BBs. Thats what I meant about MBT’s; past experience has given us an optiumum set of parameters for a tank. Too light/weak, and they’ll be outgunned by their adversaries. Too big and tough, and you won’t be able to make enough of them to make a difference in a battle/war.
The ranges on BBs was starting to get pretty insane as well. Could you imagine an open-ocean engagement where each adversary was lobbing shells 22 miles away from each other? :eek: In spite of these capabilities, some of the more modern battleships ended up slugging it out in a ‘knife fight’ at point blank ranges at night, kind of ironic considering how far they could theoretically hit each other in ideal conditions.
I heard a story from the Korean War, where a target in North Korea was a few miles outside of a battleship’s max range. So the captain of the battleship ordered his ship into shallow waters and ran her aground. Now, when they fired, energy normally wasted in recoil motion instead went to the projectile, and they were able to get their target.
My roommate 25 years ago had a poster of the USS Missouri, picture taken from the air. Missouri was firing its big guns to port and moving forward at the same time. You could tell by the ship’s wake that it was being knocked severely off-course from straight-ahead.
Incubus, not sure if you have heard of it, but the Paris Gun in WW 1 was able to shell Paris from 75 miles away. It was pretty much a monster- the shells had to be numbered and used in sequence as they were all slightly different size to compensate for the barrel wear.
That was my bad, I meant to type pre dreadnoughts.