Was there ever a more useless class of military equipment than the post-Dreadnought Battleships?
Stealth shit
>>29719399
The Bradley
MREs.
>>29719399
"Combat" pistols
Aircraft carriers post missile technology
>>29719512
Missiles post laser technology.
AT Rifles
>>29719526
They had their place and were extremely useful on the battlefield... hell technically they are still used and just renamed to "anti-material" rifles now.
Gliders
they weren't useless. People underestimated air power at sea, but BBs still performed very well apart from when they were operating under total enemy air supremacy.
Battleships were useful early in WW2.
>>29719700
What early WW2 are you thinking of?
>>29719589
>BBs still performed very well apart from when they were operating under total enemy air supremacy.
BBs performed poorly even when the enemy's only air-assets were LITERAL BAGS OF STRING
>>29719399
There were more BB vs BB actions in WWII then carrier vs carrier actions. Battleships were critical in the naval campaigns in the Mediterranean, the North Sea and the Atlantic, only in the much larger Pacific were they of little value.
>>29719727
>There were more BB vs BB actions in WWII then carrier vs carrier actions
There were literally only 9 (NINE) engagements between battleships during the ENTIRE war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_naval_battles_between_battleships
ITT dumb faggot made a thread
>>29719589
That's a nice way of saying aircraft carriers were a better alternative.
>>29719743
And there were fewer carrier v. carrier battles.
>coral sea
>midway
>eastern solomons
>santa cruz
>philipine sea
>>29719743
Which is more then carrier vs carrier.
>Coral Sea
>Midway
>Solomens
>Santa Cruz
>Philippine Sea
>>29719749
Aircraft carriers didn't do very well under total enemy air supremacy either.
>>29719703
The Med, the Atlantic. It was still useful to have big and powerful ships when you were not under threat of air attack. Even when you were naval air warfare didn't become particularly effective until later in the war. There were a few early exceptions but just look all the missions the Italians flew against the British in the Med and look at the small percentage of successes.
Case in point: Warspite in the Mediterranean was always under ineffectual Italian air attack, but stayed around long enough to play her part in the BTFO of the Regia Marina. In fact despite all the air attacks it wasn't until the Luftwaffe damaged her at Crete that she suffered any major setback due to air power. Early in the war naval air warfare wasn't developed enough to completely replace or eclipse battleships from the sphere of usefulness. In fact it probably wasn't at any time anywhere outside of mid-war Pacific campaign.
>>29719720
Swordfish crippling the Bismarck was actually a demonstration of cutting edge technology at the time, contrary to what you appear to believe in your ignorance.
The usefulness of the battleship depends on the nation.
>Japan
Completely useless, limited range and high fuel usage made them just sit a port.
>United States
Somewhat useful and worth it due to the virtually unlimited industrial power that allow us simply built everything rather then picking and choosing.
>United Kingdom
Extremely useful and very low cost as most of the battlefleet was of WWI vintage, no need to build expensive new ships when the QEs still worked(ish).
>Italy
As useful as any warship could be when crewed by Italians.
>Germany
Only useful by being a fleet-in-being, although the same could be said about any surface ships made by Germany.
>France
When you share a land border with Germany the navy is not the most important arm.
>USSR
Same as France.
>>29719803
wait, did the japanese ships use more fuel than other nations ships?
>>29719813
They had less access to fuel then other nations and they were operating at very long ranges. This is why you saw Yamato sit at anchor while the more fuel-efficient WWI vintage ships fought at Guadalcanal.
>>29719850
ah, i got it. So its not so much less fuel efficient than other nations, but more a lack of access to said fuel.
>>29719813
Wasn't so much efficiency as inherit shortage of fuel to go around. Add to this the the battle theory of "dynamic showdown: Jutland MkII" and it led to their BB force being held mostly in reserve.
They had a glaringly beautiful once in a lifetime chance with Taffy 3 to wipe out a TF and pretty much annihilate an entire supply/landing fleet. They failed to seize the advantage though and were chased off by repeated torpedo runs and amazingly accurate DD/DDE fire directly into their bridges.
>>29719870
They were chased off by 400 aircraft. Stop making a meme out of Battle off Samar and disgracing the brave men who participated in it.
>>29719755
They can do something about it, hint's in the name.
>>29719763
>Italians
Haha, okay
Why not the British? Nice cherry picking you have there. Fact is, naval combat in the Mediterranean was dominated considerations of aircraft, their range and their airbases.
>>29719879
those 400 aircraft were armed with bombs used for land targets,and on support carriers
some of them literally strafed the japs with nothing,there's even one case where a wildcat pilot fired his 45. acp
the japs have poor communication,the admiral of southern force and center force were literally not talking to each other due to rivalry so there was no coordination,they had every opportunity to destroy the invasion force but failed due to the unexpected heroism of american seaman
>>29719930
Some of them were armed with bombs and depth charges at the start. Then they were rearmed with torpedoes and AP bombs. Brave actions by the DEs bought enough time for that to happen, but stop being ignorant and perpetuate the meme that torpedo runs, 5 inch guns, and strafes drove off the Jap fleet.
>>29719930
>those 400 aircraft were armed with bombs used for land targets
At first
>and on support carriers
So?
You are literally falling for WW2-era propaganda here. Samar was a great victory but it was hardly a tale of American heroics bravely beating back an unstoppable fleet by the skin of their teeth that the myth would have you believe.
So, what was the strategy/doctrine of every major power during WW2 and before it, before aircraft carriers and missiles became a thing?
>>29719941
a tiny percentage of them were,and they were not able to resupply afterwards,and yes those are what drove off the japs fleet,since Nishimura thought that was the american attempt at stalling them while in reality Halsey was 400 km out at sea chasing a paper tiger
>>29719944
>falling for ww2 propaganda
definitely not,the action of the destroyer screening force sacrificing themselves and going head on against center force was a risky move which allowed the escort carrier to get away and launch plane was a superb maneuvere
>>29719954
each nation has different strategy and objective based around their goals
Germany know that she cannot contend with Britain and France,so Hitler hedged his fund on Karl Donitz and his U-Boats while planning to modernize the Kriegsmarine by 1945
The Brits prioritized a surface fleet to patrol the water of it's vast empire,they know that as long as the Royal Navy stands and the english channel still exist there's a tiny chance that they would be invaded
Murrica was bordered by 2 seas,so they needed a massive navy for it,at first they relied on the battleship but was forced to use the carriers an ad hoc solution,which worked beyond expectations
The Japanese noticed the significance of air power after Taranto and emulated it for themselves,but they still build massive battleships in hope of one decisive battle where they can annihilate the US forces
>>29719999
>ignorance, the post
>>29719425
here's your reply.
>>29720001
how is it ignorant.
that's what the nations approach to naval war was
>>29719908
The Italian Airforce was competent, they just couldn't replace their losses. Which is the story of most of the Italian military, they had good things, they just never had enough of it to matter.
>>29720052
A non-corrupt and competent Officer Corp would've helped them a lot too.
>>29720062
Yeah that right there was THE problem with the Italian military. It was full of nepotism hires going back to Garibaldi himself. These useless aristocrats couldn't even be touched by Mussolini (who himself was still under the King of Italy). Not to mention Masons/Communists sabotaging not only the Italian military before the war but during.
>>29720052
>The armor profile on this
No, this is not a good thing ship, let alone battleship
>>29720331
Care to tell us what was wrong with the Roma's "armor profile"?
>>29720334
>Absolutely no Citadel armor above the belt except around the conning tower
That's unacceptable
>>29720341
>Citadel armor
Do you mind using actual terms instead of memes?
>>29720341
The Roma had a better service history then the Bismarck.
>>29720356
Which was an overrated meme battleship.
Getting a 30 year old battlecruiser (which was never intended to fight battleships) out for a duck is not indicative of anything other than having big guns.
The fact that they look very nice is a use.
>>29719399
Submarines cucked every battleship after 1915.
>>29719589
IJN ones did pretty okay. Sometimes they took hundreds of planes attacking for hours to sink.
American and UK ones? Nope. And let's not even mention Italians.
>>29720829
And sometimes they took one or two torpedoes and went down like rocks.
>>29720829
Sometimes they just randomly exploded at harbor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Mutsu
>>29720851
>sabotage by a crazy guy
>random
>>29720837
That literally never happened.
>>29720001
>When a very competent post is called 'ignorant' and you lose all your wuts
>>29719399
Why is there a big ass clock on that tower? So everyone can see when to break for tea?
>>29720829
The Roma and her sister ship never even sailed until the end because of fuel shortages. They were just glorified AA towers for the city's they were docked in (couldn't really find any statistics of how useful they were in that regard). Then finally they set out to sail to the coasts of Salento to disrupt allied invasion, but really they were sailing to Malta to surrender. The Luftwaffe caught on attacked the Roma and the fleet she was with. They hit the Roma with three radio controlled bombs, and she capsized.
>>29719944
Charging cruisers and battleshups with destroyer escorts to buy your support carriers enough time to withdrawl and rearm their planes is not heroic
Fuck off weeb
>>29720829
sure thing weeb
>>29720904
I assume it's to do with fire control, it isn't a clock
>>29720904
>USS
>tea
>>29720894
>a very competent post
You mean the post that thinks, among other things, that the Japs built up their carrier fleet based on what they learned from Taranto?
>>29720946
Oklahoma, Arizona or PoW were lost in minutes to few Japanese planes.
Look how long IJN battleships survived combines attacks from multiple carriers.
>>29721001
The japs lost the war, m80
>>29721001
>Ships at anchor under PEACE conditions are destroyed more easily than ships in the open sea during war
Who could have predicted this!?
>>29720983
no,they emulated what the brits did in Taranto
not build it you imbecile,before that the navy doctrine was more Battleship centric
>>29721001
>few minutes
PoW was under attack for over two hours. Oklahoma and Arizona were at anchor.
>Look how long IJN battleships survived combines attacks from multiple carriers.
They didn't survive.
>>29721001
>Oklahoma, Arizona or PoW were lost in minutes to few Japanese planes.
Not in the slightest.
>>29721001
Took PoW two hours to sink. That's not minutes.
>>29721001
>lost in minutes to few Japanese planes.
Force Z was attacked by nearly 90 aircraft.
>>29721001
The Prince of Wales fought 88 bombers for three hours
>>29719743
That's quite a few. Especially since the doctrine was fleet in being.
>>29719553
Underrated post.
>>29721030
No, you are completely wrong. Taranto didn't influence IJN doctrine, preemptive carrier strike on a fleet in harbor was something Genda was already working on before Taranto, and Pearl Harbor attack isn't anything like Taranto except for the part where a harbor was attacked with shallow running torpedoes.
And let's look at some of your other retarded assertions.
>Murrica was bordered by 2 seas,so they needed a massive navy for it,at first they relied on the battleship but was forced to use the carriers an ad hoc solution,which worked beyond expectations
USN was not forced to use carriers. That is a retarded meme.
How many battleships or carriers the USN had was set by treaty, not by doctrine. However, as soon as the WSN treaty was scrapped, and in 1940, before any battleship was lost, the US congress authorized 18 Essex-class carriers to just 7 new battleships.
>,so Hitler hedged his fund on Karl Donitz and his U-Boats while planning to modernize the Kriegsmarine by 1945
You are obviously talking about Germany's pre-war build up, and obviously being wrong as fuck. Germany did not have a large submarine fleet before the war started, and German naval build up was directed against the French, not France and Britain.
>>29721018
Pearl Harbor was on war alert.
>>29721122
Ammunition lockers are NOT locked during War Alert.
The fuck you on?
>>29721097
i guess you're right then
>>29721144
Actually it was Alert No. 1, which is just a step below full-blown Alert order against enemy attacks.
>>29721177
Alert No. 1 had nothing to do with preparing for an enemy attack, it was all about sabotage attempts.
It did nothing to prepare for an actual military attack.
https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=PAW9hqzHy5gC&pg=PA394&lpg=PA394&dq=Pearl+Harbor+Alert+%231&source=bl&ots=24HyjTSjiB&sig=5obsgYpMVUySB6gpYD6rAL7aDew&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4rLzSyKfMAhUlNqYKHaPoBPkQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=Pearl%20Harbor%20Alert%20%231&f=false
>>29721001
>PoW were lost in minutes to few Japanese planes.
top kek
>>29720611
>Submarines scoring battleship kills.
>Zero
>>29721394
Barham was lost to a uboat.
>>29721394
What the fuck was Kongo sunk by then?
>>29719399
Females in the military
Officers.
>>29719399
Stealth anything.
5.56mm
gliders
>>29721419
FRIENDSHIP.
>>29719776
>Torpedo biplanes
>Cutting edge.
>>29721530
>radar equipped planes
>attacking at night
>not cutting edge
>>29719399
>Was there ever a more useless class of military equipment than the post-Dreadnought Battleships?
The HMS Dreadnought started service in 1906. Carriers did end up making battleship useless sure. But at what point did they? You may not know this but very early carriers were dysfunctional accident prone mess's which were usable under only very limited conditions. Early carrier based bombers also were not up the task that they were made for either.
The first carrier-based torpedo bomber that I would put any stock into is the Blackburn Ripon, because it was the first one to under go trails on a purpose-built aircraft carrier. It had to under major redesign before being accepted. That was in 1926, and that is the point in which carriers started being useful at all. That would be 20 years for there to be anything that could be viewed a a different type of ship that could be used a ship type to center naval combat around.
Even after that lets just say a not small amount of time, money, and effort was put into getting better carrier based aircraft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_carrier-based_aircraft
See how many planes are on that list, and how many ended up going into production? Many of them of the same role and for the same county very close to together.
I honesty believe that if WW2 had started over the matter of remilitarization of the Rhineland on 7 March 1936 battleships would of been still rather useful.
>>29721505
>>29722194
they were still useful until very late in WW2. A huge, armoured ship with fuck-off guns on is still going to fuck up anything not equally big and nasty if it can get in range. Effectively, they were still of use until a certain saturation point of naval air power, which only really came about in the closing months of the war.
>>29719803
>As useful as any warship could be when crewed by Italians.
kek
>>29720372
It's an indication of pretty good fire control systems.
>>29720868
One of the Kongos did and the Yamato nearly did.
>>29720940
It is when you run off the biggest battleship in the world and scare the Japs so badly they claimed they were up against heavy cruisers so that they wouldn't look so bad.
>>29719879
The engagement continued long after the aircraft were out of munitions.
>>29721394
>what is the HMS Royal Oak
>>29722429
>>29720829
How many US BBs were lost to aircraft after Pearl?
>>29722879
The Kongos were battlecruisers though
>>29722971
>Biography of Roosevelt
>Obama poster
topkek
>>29722989
I like to think of them as light fast battleships.
>>29722989
They were rebuilt as battleships.
>>29723023
Quote unquote. They still were fast, had good guns, and rubbish armour. They were jumped up battlecruisers.
>>29723005
Literally what a Battlecruiser is. Or specifically, a Fast Battleship is a BB moving at Battlecruiser-esque speeds.
>>29723058
Kongou's armor thickness was similar to pre-SD class US battleships.
>>29723126
Compared to what? The New Yorks still out armoured her, and Kongou was made with Japanese steel.
>>29723229
Nvm their belt armor was BC-tier.
>>29723255
The NY class had a good few inches on the Kongous, belt wise. And a lot more on the turrets. Never mind steel quality and Japanese damage control.
Battleships, and armor in general never got a chance to adapt to aircraft. The last few battleship designers still underestimated aircraft.
To this day, the hardest ship in the world to sink via surprise attack is probably the USS Texas. It was built before the all-or-nothing armor scheme and is basically a floating castle. The Iowa's can take more hits than pretty much any ship too.
>>29719399
Good to know day/k/are also posts on weekends.
>>29723371
>To this day, the hardest ship in the world to sink via surprise attack is probably the USS Texas
Is this the famous listerinefag?
>>29723401
INDEED IT IS
>>29722997
Oh, haven't you heard? The last few years there's been a small but steady push to draw parallels between Teddy and Barry and portray them as similar Presidents.
It was really obnoxious in The Roosevelts.
>>29720940
>Charging cruisers and battleshups with destroyer escorts to buy your support carriers enough time to withdrawl and rearm their planes is not heroic
I am having a very hard time understanding this logic. The US Navy's Taffy 3 is one of the most heroic things I have ever heard of.
>>29719803
Came here to post this. Good job senpai.
>>29719752
>>29719754
hivemind of /k/
![images[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/D9Fv1f6.jpg "images[1].jpg")
>>29720331
Oh hai
>>29723775
It's not so much hivemind as fact.
What the fuck.
>>29723615
>>29723635
>>29723642
>>29723650
>>29723693
>>29723707
>>29723722
>>29723744
>>29723757
>>29723776
>>29723797
>>29723805
>>29723816
>>29723816
god damnit why boner.
>>29723849
>>29723840
should have nuked them a third time
>>29724022
>Thinking the nukes were to blame
>Not realizing Japan was always weird
At best, we would've gotten a more terrifying Godzilla, the porn wouldn't have changed in the least.
>>29723849
Yeah...all that seemed a bit excessive.
>>29720355
that is a real term you idiot
>>29723840
>>29723849
>>29723980
What did I miss?
I leave to mow the yard and come back and this..?
>>29724472
Bullying porn
>>29724486
What, like forced s&m?
>>29724525
No, one girl pushes another, 2nd girl's friend get back at 1st girl by getting her raped by a dog and breaking a lightbulb in her vagoo.
>>29724548
Standard anime, then. Like the other guy said, we should have dropped more nukes
>>29724548
Oh. Thanks
>>29723849
I feel uncomfortable now.
>>29719999
>The Japanese noticed the significance of air power after Taranto and emulated it for themselves
What an absolutely retarded thing to say.
>Germany know that she cannot contend with Britain
Which is exactly why we didn't care for a competition with the Brits. Our navy was always focused on France. Also the reason why this guy>>29719803 is completely wrong. The Bismarck was never supposed to be anything other than a convoy raider, she was was supposed to dismantle a number of escorts on her own.
I don't know why you fags always have to compare navies with another and then ignore the actual purpose of each individual navy.
>>29723812
I still can't believe fuckers in the 1940's got that shit to work and here I am in fucking 2016 and I can't get my modern drone to fly in a straight line
>>29724835
>The Bismarck was never supposed to be anything other than a convoy raider
She did a terrible job of that. All of the German surface raiders were of little use during the war. The Bismark would have been better used as fleet-in-being rather then risked and lost at a time the Italians were fighting for control of the Med. Look at the impact that the existence of the Tirpitz had on RN planning, it was far more effective then any of the lost surface raiders.
>>29720829
>IJN ones did pretty okay. Sometimes they took hundreds of planes attacking for hours to sink.
And some would take one or two torpedoes and sink. Your point?
>American and UK ones? Nope.
The British carriers only ever faced submarines.
>And let's not even mention Italians.
They only had one and that was scraped after the war.
>>29725214
It was the only thing she could do m8. What do you want? For her go up against the actual RN? We both know she wouldn't have been able to deal with that at the time, mostly due to the fact that carriers simply took over and German air superiority was non existent. Why do you think we build Graf in the first place. It's not like there was anything other than convoy raiding for the Kriegsmarine.
We needed something that could do the job of convoy raiding without having to fear anything from escorts. This could have worked just fine but obviously the Brits knew exactly what they were up against and decided to throw everything at it.
I'm more of a Heavy Cruiser kinda guy anyways.
>>29725424
>Graf
>built
>>29725402
First off he was talking about BBs not CVs, that said.
>The British carriers only ever faced submarines.
The British carriers faced submarines, carrier attack, land based carriers and gunfire.
>>29725451
>land based carriers
I believe those are known as "airfields."
>>29725449
I never implied that she was finished. The point was the idea behind building her.
>>29725424
>What do you want?
For her to be used in the fleet-in-being role.
Any sortie was a colossal risk of a valuable resource that tied down British capital ships and the reward of sinking a few merchantmen was hardly worth the risk.
>>29725402
American ships tended to be able to take a beating.
Remember Yorktown? The sumbitch took severe damage at Guadalcanal, got patched up with blocks of wood, duct tape, and bad language and still took damage enough to have sunk any 2 carriers before it was finally put down.
Remember Hornet? She took damage that would have put down most battleships before she finally sank, to include over 500 5 inch shells and over a dozen torpedoes.
>>29725507
>severe damage at Guadalcanal
I think you mean Coral Sea, anon.
>>29725507
Yorktown was on the bottom of the ocean when Guadalcanal took place.
Hornet was hit by 3 bombs and 2 torps, plus 9 USN "torpedoes" and a bunch of 5" gun hits, definitely not enough to sink most battleships.
>>29725553
That's more damage than a few battleships I could name took.
>>29725591
Well go ahead and name a few battleships that sunk from 250kg bombs and 5" gunfire.
>>29725614
Dude >>29725591 is right. Even Achilles had his heel.
You're right, too, though. Battleships were usually designed to take more damage. Their designers underestimated airplanes though.
>>29723605
its sarcasm but he forgot to greenpost.
>the next line is fuck off dweeb
>>29726450
Battleships were far better protected against airplanes than carriers.
>>29725614
Prince of Wales
>>29727337
4 confirmed torp hits and 800 kg bombs.
Still waiting for all those battleships that supposedly sank from less damage than the Hornet took.
>>29727404
Arizona
>>29721001
>attacking peace time condition ships at harbour
>still performed better then weeb ships at wartime standards.
www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-071.htm
