First is the effect of the sinking of the Ostfriesland in July 1921. Mitchell broke the engagement rules to sink the ship. The Navy wanted to see how the ships would sink, NOT just to sink the ship. Thus the rules requiring all plans to use small bombs. After each bombing mission the crew of the ship would reenter the ships check the damage and the flooding. To maximize the flooding all of the water tight door were kept OPEN. The ships were also stationary so easy for the plans to hit and the attack was in full daylight. Conditions NOT always the case, especially in the North Atlantic. Mitchell disobeyed orders and put bombs on his planes that would clearly sink the ship. Even the Navy at the time accepted that fact. Showing the planes could sink a ship was NOT the purpose of the test, but HOW the ships would need to be designed in the Future to minimize the affect of such bombers.
In fact one of the big differences between WWI and WWII designed battleships was the movement of deck armor UP. When the only fear was was shells from other ships (or Torpedo's) deck Armor was kept low to give maximize protection to the engine and haul of the ship. If you lost all of the Guns, the ship could still survive do to its engine still running. Thus the main deck armor was low, to work best with the side armor against shells. The distances the shells were being fired any shell would come in at a low angle. As the Shell hit the ship, the shell would penetrate the armor at an angle. Thus if the deck armor was 6 inches thick, the shell, hitting the armor at an angle may have to go through 8-9 inches of steel (Tank armor adopted this same angle toward the end of WWII, for the same reason, forcing any shell to penetrate the armor at an angle, thus forcing the shell to go through a thickness greater than the nominal thickness of the armor).
Back to Battleships. The purpose of the test was to see HOW the battleships would take bombs dropped from Planes. Such bombs would hit the Deck Armor straight on, i.e. the minimal possible thickness for the shell to penetrate. Other tests shows what the Navy had tried to find out in this test, to minimize the damage caused by a bomb, they had to move the main deck Armor UP to provide the maximum space for any bomb that penetrated that armor to blown up in (And thus minimize the damage to the Ship). Thus during WWII, the newer designed battleships tended to have the main deck armor higher then the older WWI battleships (There were exceptions to this rule, the Bismark was a WWI design the Germans did a quick update on and built, looking at the Bismark it looked modern, but the basic design was obsolete do to its low deck armor). While the Bismark's steering was knocked out by a torpedo plane, it still took British Battleships to sink her.
Battleships proved their worth at several battles in WWII. The sinking of the Bismark is the most famous. The main reason was air plane operations were difficult to do at night. During the German invasion of Norway in April 1940 you had the first time a battleship (Actually a Heavy Cruiser) took on a Carrier. The Carrier had to wait for its planes to return, and while waiting the Battleships came up to her at maximum speed and sunk the Carrier. In 1943 the Survivors of Pearl Harbor (which was almost all of the Battleships) had been repaired and ended up engaging the Japanese Fleet, sinking the Japanese ships including at least one Battleship. NO aircraft was involved for it was a night action. In fact no Modern designed battleship was sunk by aircraft during WWII EXCEPT if it operated without air cover (the Yamoto being the most famous example). Part of this was do to the higher priority given to Carriers, but part of this was do to the fact Battleships were designed to take hits and unless hit several times did not sink (In fact the USS Pennsylvania a WWI era battleship, sister ship to the Arizona, even survived a near Atom Bomb blast in 1947, the Navy torpedoed it themselves to sink it afterward for the Navy did NOT need it any more.
Plans were made for new Battleships after WWII, but someone pointed out who they would be used against, Congress killed those plans the first plans for what we now call Super Carriers. The best story on this was Greece in 1946. The US sent in the Missouri and Stalin told the Communists in Bulgaria to Stop Supporting Communists in Greece on the ground to hold Greece you need a Fleet and Russia did NOT have one at that time (Nor did Stalin have any plan on building one, that would NOT occur till after his death). Thus the Navy had a problem, how do you show the Navy is important when the main enemy has no fleet and limited coast line? The Battleships were out, the Navy did NOT even finish the last two Iowa Class battleships nor even start building the Montana Class Battleships. The Navy had a hard time convincing Congress that it would be even a factor in any War with Russia, till Korea when the Carriers started to provide Air Cover. The Modern Super Carrier concept came out of Korea, a large Carrier to provide a base for attacks inland. Carriers were NOT to fight Naval battles (and have NOT since 1945, the closest being the British in the Falklands in the early 1980s, but the Argentina Navy once it landed the Troops stayed out of the subsequent battle especially after its main surface ship a WWII Ex-US Heavy Cruiser was sunk by a British Submarine).
Given that the purpose of the Navy is to impose our will on another country, battleships are no longer needed and thus not built (Through some people want to bring them back, either as a all missile launcher low lying ship, or as a gun ship, with the guns to provide artillery support for shore operations). Carriers are preferred do to their ability to have their aircraft drop bombs almost everywhere. The Change is more a reflections of potential targets and lack of opposition Navy then anything else.
Things Begin to change in the late 1950s with the death of Stalin in 1953. Khrushchev saw the advantages of a Navy and started to build on. His efforts were slow until after the Cuban Missile Criss where the US used it fleet to block Soviet Cargo Ships form reaching Cubs. The building of a Soviet Fleet really took off when Brezhnev replaced Khrushchev in 1964. Missiles technology was just coming in and the Soviets saw this as a way to minimize the advantages of the US Navy at that time. The Soviets would have fishing Trawlers all over the place, to act as spys on the US Navy but also as stations for the early cruise missiles the Soviets were using to get to the Carriers. The US Navy had to response, and the response was to accept the fact that close to shore or in closed in water the Carriers were easy targets to these new Soviet weapons. The Russian adoption of Nuclear Attack subs enhanced their capabilities to destroy the US Fleet. The main disadvantage the Soviets had was the limited ways Soviet Ships could leave Russia. The Bosporus limited Russian access to the Mediterranean. The Bering Straits limited access from most of Russia to the Pacific and the North sea limited Russian access to the Atlantic (and this was where the Main Russian fleet has always operated out of). The Russians nuclear subs were louder than US subs of the time period do to the Soviet use of double hauls on such subs, but their Diesel subs were quieter than US Nukes (The US had quite Making Diesel Subs in the early 1950s). These silent diesel subs were NOT intended for deep ocean, but the shadow seas of the Arctic, North, Baltic, Black and Mediterranean (as while as the North Japanese Sea).
Together with the Soviet Surface Navy, the Soviet Navy Air Force (all land based till the late 1960s) these forces were to force the US Navy away from any area the Red Army was operating in. Note NOT defeat the US Navy, but to drive the US Navy away from the coasts. Thus the comment that Carriers were nothing but Missile Magnets by the late 1960s. This was true ONLY IN THOSE AREAS CLOSE TO THE COASTS. If the Navy was able to stay 500-1000 miles away, the Carriers had enough means to defend themselves, but such distances reduced the effectiveness of the Fleet Air Arm for each plane would haver to carry more fuel do to the longer distances needed to travel AND less planes could go, since you will need to in-flight refuel them to and from the targets (Planes would have to be launched to do the in-flight refueling, thus reducing planes available for the bombing mission). This also put more strain on US re-enforcement of NATO ground forces, given the ability of the Russian ATTACK subs to attack convoys in the Atlantic (And the need for the Carriers to provide air Cover for both the Ships Convoys AND the Air Convoys to Europe, most troops would be flown to Europe by 1960, but even today their supplies would come by Ship).
This was the Situation form the late 1960s to 1989 when the Soviet Union collapsed and with it, the Russian's ability to do damage to the US Carriers (Do to a general disarmament and retirement of ALL ships by the Russians and thus less training do to no money). While the ability disappeared do to lack of money, HOW the Soviets were going to neutralize the US Carriers remain a possibly. This is what the Chinese are up to at present. Unlike the old Soviet Union, the entire Chinese Coast can be use to launch ships. While Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines can provide a barrier, all are within range of Chinese land based Aircraft without refueling and thus any ships can push through these barriers given air cover. The big question is what does China want, control of the Sea of Japan and the South China Sea (i.e. the water between China and Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines) or does China want control BEYOND Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines? An alternative may be control between China and Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines AND no US presence west of Guam (i.e. China does not control the water east of Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines but neither does the US). I lean to this, for it means China domination of all of its Neighbors and minimal US presence around China.
I do NOT think China cares who controls Guam or the Pacific proper as long as China is the dominate Country around all the countries around China. Adopting the old Soviet policy of land base air support for naval operations would be sufficient to control the South China Sea and the Sea of Japan. A couple of smaller carriers to at least challenge the US off the east coast of Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines would enhance this move. The US Carriers are to expensive to risk in the seas between China and Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines but can provide a show of force US force in the Western Pacific. Chinese Carriers could force the US Carriers further East, thus making it harder for the US to project power into the South China Sea and the Sea of Japan area.
Thus the key is what are China's intentions? The Chinese do NOT need carriers to Control the Water of their Coast. US Carriers have been nothing but missile magnets in that same area since the 1960s (NOT enough room to maneuver). It is a different story in the Pacific proper, the US Carriers are in their element in the Pacific (and the Indian Ocean and most of the Atlantic, but as the Carriers get closer to land, the more they will be subject to possible missile attack).
Are Carriers useful? The Answer is yes, but you have to keep them out of any area where missiles could be launch against them with minimal time for the carriers to respond. In fact I think it would be better to pull out the old WWII battleships (The four Iowa Class, the sole surviving North Carolina Class and the two surviving North Dakota Class Class Battleships) if you want capital ships in the Persian Gulf. They were all designed to take massive amount of damage, much more than Carriers, if updated with Radar and Antimissile defense systems they all will survive longer in some place like the Persian Gulf then any Carrier or any other ship. Their 16 inch guns have a limited range (With new rounds just less than 20 miles), but the guns could be used to make the gulf safe for Carriers (i.e. force the Iranians to fire their Missiles at these old Battleships, and pound the launch sites with their Guns, hit the launch sites with cruse missiles launched from the battleships or even just radio the Carriers where to launch an Air Attack. Would we lose all of the Battleships in such a situation, the answer is yes, but the Carriers will be able to do what they do best, launch a massive air Attack from a safe distance.
Things have changed since the 1950s when the US was the in reality the Sole Naval Power (France and England had Navies, but both were inferior to the US Navy). The coasts are much more dangerous. Carriers need time to protect themselves against such threats and to do so the Carriers MUST be away from the Coast. Ships today MUST be prepared for attacks using Anti-Ship missiles from almost any size ship, land or air (and often from all three at the same time). To defend oneself one must have time to react, to get that time you must be a safe distance from areas where such missiles could be launched from (Or be able to take a few hits like the old Battleships). This restricts what the Carriers can do, but the Carriers are still useful, just like the Battleships were still useful in WWII.
Ostfriesland
http://german-navy.tripod.com/sms_bb_helgoland-ost-photos.htmList of US Battleships:
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/battleships/bb-list1.htmlThe North Carolina Class originally had two ships, The North Dakota Four Ships, all decommissioned in 1947 after less then six years of use. The sister ship to the North Carolina was sold for Scape in 1961, as was two of the South Dakota Class in 1962. The North Carolina and the Three Surviving South Dakota Class Ships War Memorials. Both classes were smaller and lighter then the later Iowa Class, but with the same amount of Armor.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
