Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Most underrated battleship/battlecruiser?

Discussion in 'The War at Sea' started by Notmi, Jan 1, 2005.

  1. Revere

    Revere New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Iowa, US
    via TanksinWW2
    The yamato if the japanese continued there attack on pearl they would of won but yamato all he whanted was a strike common u have it right there take it!!!!!but since i'm american i'm happy he didn't
     
  2. corpcasselbury

    corpcasselbury New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High Point, North Carolina, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    I believe you mean Yamamoto. YAMATO was the name ship of the Japanese superbattleship class. I read that all Japanese BBs (and I presume BCs, too), BTW, were named after ancient names for Japan or Japanese provinces. An interesting tradition, IMHO.
     
  3. Notmi

    Notmi New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Suomi Finland Perkele
    via TanksinWW2
  4. corpcasselbury

    corpcasselbury New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High Point, North Carolina, USA
    via TanksinWW2
  5. Ebar

    Ebar New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    On a space station in geosynchronous orbit above y
    via TanksinWW2
    BATTLESHIP TRIVIA


    On November 29, 1941, the program for the annual Army-Navy football game boasted a shot of the Battleship Arizona with this caption: "It is significant that despite the claims of air enthusiasts no battleship has yet been sunk by bombs." Today one can visit the site (now a shrine) where the Arizona was sunk by Japanese bombers nine days later.]
     
  6. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    This is obviously going off topic from the thread title, but assuming you mean Admiral Yamamoto, exactly what makes you suppose that the Japanese could have successfully executed an invasion of Pearl Harbour in December 1941?

    If alternatively you're refering to the Admiral in command of the Pearl Harbour raid, that was Nagumo not Yamamoto, and in any case there's not a great deal to suggest that if Nagumo had launched an additional attack on Pearl harbour that the outcome of the war would have been any different.
     
  7. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Didn't Billy Marshall sink a German Battleship in trials after WW1?
     
  8. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Unlikely, since it was Billy Mitchell involved in the post WWI trials! :lol:

    (Get me an ant then! :lol: )
     
  9. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Ah, a name like that... :oops:
     
  10. Tiornu

    Tiornu Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    21
    via TanksinWW2
    The Americans had received the dreadnought Ostfriesland as part of their reparations after the war. Very specific instructions were established for trials to investigate the capabilities of bombs against heavy ships. Mitchell directed his men to disregard their instructions and instead attack in such a way that was guaranteed to rapidly destroy the ship. So the trials were ruined, the navy lost its unique opportunity to test a dreadnought, and Mitchell then proclaimed himself a martyr when he got in trouble. I do not have much respect for this man. He was not a visionary; his vague pronouncements on air power showed he had no concept of what was feasible, what was promising, and what was currently possible. He was a blind advocate for himself and for the command he hoped to have. Had he succeeded in his goals, the results would have been ruinous for the American military.
     
  11. Ebar

    Ebar New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    On a space station in geosynchronous orbit above y
    via TanksinWW2
    Fanatics of any description on any topic can be very damaging. They loose perspective and tend to ignore factors that don't fit with their worldview.

    WW2 showed that had Billy Michell's men tried level bombing under combat conditions they would have been butchered without achieving much.
     
  12. corpcasselbury

    corpcasselbury New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High Point, North Carolina, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Perhaps. But at the time of the tests, this was not as certain, especially given the A/A defenses of the day and lack of air cover for the fleet. More to the point, it must be noted that whatever Mitchell did or didn't do, the Navy brass did try to rig the tests so that he couldn't sink OSTFRIESLAND at all. So he wasn't the only one with worldview problems.
     
  13. Tiornu

    Tiornu Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    21
    via TanksinWW2
    "More to the point, it must be noted that whatever Mitchell did or didn't do, the Navy brass did try to rig the tests so that he couldn't sink OSTFRIESLAND at all."
    Huh?
    The navy wanted to rig the trials to provide usable results--and that's a bad thing? That's like saying the teacher rigged the quiz so that the students had to hand in their papers for grading.
     
  14. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    No, trying to hold a test where only your preconcieved hypothesis will be proven is surely not a good thing. A better analogy is a teacher holding a quiz and then allocating marks based on what they belive the pupils would achieve.

    Cross-reference to all those RN wargames where the rules meant that submarines were effectively neutralised, or even the US armoured wargames of the late 1930s/early 1940s, where the rules meant that AT guns were practically invincible.

    What Mitchell (where did I get 'Marshall' from?) did is prove that battleships can be sunk by planes. Nothing more, nothing less.
     
  15. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Cross-reference to all those RN wargames where the rules meant that submarines were effectively neutralised, or even the US armoured wargames of the late 1930s/early 1940s, where the rules meant that AT guns were practically invincible.

    According to Len Deighton the British army held similar wargames where the tank units were either so restricted that they could achieve nothing, or where any successes were just ignored.
     
  16. lynn1212

    lynn1212 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    upstate NY USA
    via TanksinWW2
    war games & trials

    both have a well deserved reputation of being "fixed" but there are times when it is needed. many games are meant to test 1 or 2 items or tactics and the rules are slanted to ensure the important stuff gets tested. its not always the brass protecting the status quo.
     
  17. Tiornu

    Tiornu Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    21
    via TanksinWW2
    "A better analogy is a teacher holding a quiz and then allocating marks based on what they belive the pupils would achieve."
    Analogy to what? This certainly didn't represent the attitude of the USN. The strict rules governing the trials indicate that it was already known that Ostrfriesland could be sunk, and this eventuality was being precluded.

    "What Mitchell did is prove that battleships can be sunk by planes."
    To whom? To people unfamiliar with the subject. The fact that people continue to think Mitchell was a visionary opposing the hidebound USN merely illustrates the degree to which his hype was successful. Anyone who'd like a better idea of what the USN was really thinking--and as you'd guess, there were skeptics and proponents of air power--forget Mitchell (who wasn't a navy man, after all!) and read books like Melhorn's Two-Block Fox and Wildenberg's All the Factors of Victory.
    For the uninitiate, Mitchell proved that planes could sink battleships. Unfortunately, he was supposed to be revealing the degree to which compartmentation provided protection from bomb damage.
     
  18. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Hmmm.
    Can you feel my beloved ignorance shrinking? :D
     
  19. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Going back to what restarted this thread off again:

    "On November 29, 1941, the program for the annual Army-Navy football game boasted a shot of the Battleship Arizona with this caption: "It is significant that despite the claims of air enthusiasts no battleship has yet been sunk by bombs." Today one can visit the site (now a shrine) where the Arizona was sunk by Japanese bombers nine days later.]"

    Can this still be considered true, as I am not a ship man and regardless of whether Mitchell was right or wrong in what he did, did he actually sink a Battleship with bombs?

    To help dispel some of my ignorance what is the difference between a Dreadnought and a Battleship?
     
  20. Ebar

    Ebar New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    On a space station in geosynchronous orbit above y
    via TanksinWW2

    In 1906 the UK launched the battleship HMS Dreadnought. This ship had two made distinguishing features from earlier battleships:
    1) All big gun main armament. Earlier designs had pecked one another to death with guns ranging from 6" to 12". After Dreadnought when one battleship fought another nothing smaller than a 12" counted.
    2) Steam turbine engines. This gave better top speed and, more importantly but less publicised, better sustainable speed. With the triple expansion engines of the earlier battleships if you hit top speed for even a short period the ship would need dockyard attention for the engines.

    This all meant that by WW1 'Battleship' was basically a blanket term, within which you had the sub categories Dreadnought and Pre-Dreadnought. However by WW2 this distinction was gone. There were still a few Pre Dreadnoughts kicking around but only the Germans used them in combat and even then only in 1939. So basically there was no longer any difference between Dreadnought and battleship.

    Does that answer your question?
     

Share This Page