Will they really bring back the battleship?

[Dissonance]

@bump

Maybe the barrels themselves, but the turrets are some of the most heavily armored parts of the ship.

For example, the USS Maryland got hit by a kamikaze carrying a 500 lb bomb on the #3 turret at Okinawa. Turret was still usable afterward.

Battleships are remarkably resilient- multiple battleships were hit multiple times by kamikaze (the closest analogue to ASMs I can think of) without crippling damage, often within the same day. Many got hit by torpedoes with the same results.

They were obsolete in 1941, but nobody nailed the coffin shut until the war was over.

I’ve said this here many times before, but battleships were not obsolete in 1941; that they had been dethroned as the queen of the seas by aircraft carriers did not make them no longer useful or only fit for shore bombardment. There were actually far more surface engagements in the Pacific during WWII than carrier vs carrier battles. Japan lost more of its battleships in surface engagements during the war (Hiei, Kirishima, Fuso, Yamashiro - and all but Hiei in battles with American battleships) than it did to air attack (Yamato, Musashi). Three battleships were sunk at anchor at Kure harbor in July 1945, but they were scarcely battle-worthy at that point; they did not have enough fuel left to leave harbor. Ise had even lost her official designation as a battleship, having been reclassified as a fourth class reserve ship and was towed to serve as a floating anti-aircraft battery:

From 25 February 1945 until the surrender of Japan, Ise remained docked at Kure, without fuel or aircraft, and repainted in a camouflage olive green with splotches. The camouflage was not effective against USN Task Force 58 carrier-based aircraft on 19 March 1945, when more than 240 aircraft attacked Kure and Ise was hit by two bombs. Re-designated as a fourth-class reserve ship on 20 April, Ise was towed to Ondo Seto (between Kure and Kurahashijima) to serve as a floating anti-aircraft battery.

[Ludovic]

ISTM that BB’s in WW2 were not obsolete but were obsolescent. I haven’t done a detailed study but my sense is that resource for resource destroyers were at least as effective at surface combat with their price and maneuverability and torpedoes.

[spifflog]

@Ludovic

ISTM that BB’s in WW2 were not obsolete but were obsolescent. I haven’t done a detailed study but my sense is that resource for resource destroyers were at least as effective at surface combat with their price and maneuverability and torpedoes.

Even at the end of WWII, manuverability and speed were taking a back seat to virtually all other aspects of war fighting. If you could keep up with the battle group, that was (and is) enough.

Destroyers were effective because they were cheap, and could be made in many shipyards relatively quickly. They were also versatile. Surface action, NGFS, ASW, convoy escort - they could do it all to some degree. While there were over 100 aircraft carriers at the end of WWII and over 20 BBs, there were over 400 destroyers and DEs. You could just have more DDs and DEs for the buck.

[bump]

@Lemur866

I’m just curious where exactly we’re going to be conducting a WWII style opposed landing anytime soon.

One real value of having a MEF or MEB hanging around with a US fleet is that it’s a sort of force-in-being. The enemy would have to account for a Marine brigade or division that is capable of forcing an opposed landing being mobile and nearby.

It’s doubtful that the USMC has a plan to just aim themselves into the teeth of the enemy for an amphibious landing. Rather the idea would be to do something D-Day or Inchon-style, and land somewhere in their rear areas where they’re not expecting it, and gain a beachhead for other follow-on forces.

From a strategic perspective, that’s a very powerful and game-changing thing, and is a huge part of why a MEB/MEF hanging around nearby is a huge threat to our enemies.