Battleship Porn

[frostytheplebe]

And I am also completely in favor of naming carriers after battles/big ideas instead of people.

I agree with you. Lexington, Yorktown, Essex, Saratoga, Wasp, Constellation... I'm still waiting for a USS Chesapeake. One of the original six "United States" class frigates.

 

[Dominator]

The definition of what those three ships were classified as is "Pocket Battleship." But most (key word, most) historical sources classify them as heavily armed Battlecruisers because of their displacement, overall size and armament. You could make the same argument about the USS Constitution not being a frigate because she carried at least 18 more guns then a standard Frigate, but thats how she's classified.

Actually Admiral Hipper class heavy cruisers (and Baltimore class also) were larger and heavier then Deutschland class ships. "Pocket battleship" was just a nickname, and calling this ships battlecruisers is a huge overstatement - they've displaced just 14-16000 tonnes, while Repulse displaced 28000 and Kongo class more then 30000.

Edit: Just noticed that this discussion gained a very fitting title

 

[frostytheplebe]

Edit: Just noticed that this discussion gained a very fitting title

I thought that was funny as hell myself. Well since we are all ogling battleships and Aircraft carriers, perhaps you all would like to she a ship derived from the worst of both worlds. The HIJMS Ise. Clearly an old Battleship... but note the flight deck on the back of the ship.

 

[Dundradal]

The Ise and her sistership were converted during the war. The 2 aft turrets were removed and that short flight deck installed. It could only launch aircraft...it could not recover them. And most sources indicate it never launched any aircraft from the flight deck.

Both ships were used a bait during Battle of Cape Engano in 1944. After that they were left in the home islands.

 

[frostytheplebe]

The Ise and her sistership were converted during the war. The 2 aft turrets were removed and that short flight deck installed. It could only launch aircraft...it could not recover them. And most sources indicate it never launched any aircraft from the flight deck.

Both ships were used a bait during Battle of Cape Engano in 1944. After that they were left in the home islands.

All very true. But part of the reason they never launched AC was because they were never really used in any forward action. Japan didn't want to send them out due to the losses they were taking.

 

[Dundradal]

They never launched planes because after Philippine Sea they didn't have enough pilots. The carriers at Cape Engano carried a total of 37 aircraft. All on the true carriers.

Forward action? They were part of Ozawa's fleet trying to lure Halsey away from Leyte.

 

[frostytheplebe]

Forward action? They were part of Ozawa's fleet trying to lure Halsey away from Leyte.

I don't really qualify that as forward action, that was a diversion.

 

[Dundradal]

While that was the intent of the operation (to divert Halsey away from Kurita's Center Force) the Battle of Cape Engano saw the two fleets engage each other (Ozawa had launched his aircraft earlier to strike the US force and then land on airfields in the Philippines). The ships of Ozawa's force came under attack and I don't see how you can view the action as simply a diversion. The ships were deployed for combat and engaged in it with American aircraft.

By forward action are you talking about a surface action? I consider engaging in combat a forward action. They were sent into the battle for the purpose of bringing the enemy to battle.

 

[Tigerhawk]

Without revealing anything classified, I can tell you that Enterprise or any of the Nimitz class can cruise around at flank speed all they want - the only limiting factor is food. They are not limited to short bursts of high speed.

Quite. I remember speeding from about being eight hours from Nice, France (a port call, dammit!) straight to the Suez onboard Theodore Roosevelt back in '93. My squadron's berthing was right over the screws...when we suddenly went to flank, the world seemed like it suddenly turned to one giant earthquake.

Our flattops just don't run flat out that often for the fact that they don't exactly stop on a dime if they need to.

 

[Tigerhawk]

Heh. I think about the only people bothered by such inconsistencies are sci-fi fans, who'd like every navy fictional or otherwise to be consistent, easy to understand... and positively inhuman. It would be very, very abnormal for anyone to always stick with the naming scheme.

Just looking at the exceptions you mentioned - well, what state wouldn't want a ship named after itself? Obviously, when a given class (like the Ohio) is discontinued, the state that would have been next in line (or at least felt it should have been next in line) starts lobbying to have some other ship named after itself. Ship names in general are subject to intense lobbying from many sides. And that is normal - consistent naming schemes would not be .

Well, the naming schemes end up making me shake my head and smiling with that "whatever" look to it. I think you're right about the lobbying part, especially with the Seawolf class attack subs. The three they built...that was another oddity: Seawolf, Connecticut, (which I think was the lobbying part...Groton's long been a sub hub), and Jimmy Carter...uh....okay.

I think one of the best nods in a ship name, though, was the carrier USS Shangri-La, an obvious nod to Roosevelt's reference to where the B-25s came from for the End Run that was the raid over Tokyo.

 

[frostytheplebe]

Quite. I remember speeding from about being eight hours from Nice, France (a port call, dammit!) straight to the Suez onboard Theodore Roosevelt back in '93. My squadron's berthing was right over the screws...when we suddenly went to flank, the world seemed like it suddenly turned to one giant earthquake.

Our flattops just don't run flat out that often for the fact that they don't exactly stop on a dime if they need to.

My buddy was stationed on the Kitty Hawk in the years leading up to its retirement. You want loud? From what he told me, his ears still haven't stopped ringing.

 

[TCS-Concordia]

I don't know about carriers, but it gets ear splitting inside a M1133 'MEV' Stryker when the engine block warmer/heater is on. When it says: "Hearing Protection Required" inside, it isn't messing around.

 

[Quarto]

I think one of the best nods in a ship name, though, was the carrier USS Shangri-La, an obvious nod to Roosevelt's reference to where the B-25s came from for the End Run that was the raid over Tokyo.

Yep, and if you read Dan V. Gallery's book (whose English title I don't recall... possibly "Battle Stations", or "Action Stations" like the WC novel), he talks a bit about the names for those carriers. They were supposed to name a ship after some recently-killed officer, and they only succeeded the third or fourth time round. Each previous time, something got in the way that caused them to use of a different name (Shangri-La was one of those cases, IIRC)... much to the irritation of the officer's widow, who was to christen the ship, and kept receiving last-minute cancellations...

 

[ELTEE]

I don't agree with your appraisal of air power at this point.

Yes, I really meant when we see them in action in WWI. Granted, airpower is still developing, but it's becoming increasingly clear to those at the time who are interested that it has the potential to change the balance of power in the future.

That I'll agree with you on.

Thanks!

This I do not agree with at all. You are basing your opinion of the Battlecruiser on the British designs. It is well documented that the British had a very foolish outlook on how a ship "Should be" built in the years leading up to WW2.

This is harder to accurately evaluate. At Jutland, there were several factors that lead to the poor performance of British battlecruisers in general. Poor tactics, poor gunnery, and to your point, compromised construction compared to their present day German counterparts.

If you think about it, though, the whole idea of a battlecruiser at the time was to outrun anything that could defeat it while outgunning anything it could catch. Battlecruisers were originally designed to chase down and eliminate armored cruisers or other vessels that were dangerous but clearly faster than battleships. I don't think you can really argue the fact that they really had no business being at the front of a massive fleet engagement. True, the German units performed better in this particular battle, but as Quarto pointed out, it can be difficult to obtain adequate information on a class' performance from one engagement.

Battlecruisers might have fared better historically in German hands also because they were employed closer to the role for which they were intended. German units often engaged in commerce raiding, where speed and hard hitting power genuinely ensured victory at that mission. The British seemed doomed to continue using battlecruisers as worthy oponents 1v1 against battleships, as evidenced by the use of Hood to hunt down and destroy the Bismark.

If you stop to think about it, though, would Gneisenau really be able to engage Yamato or New Jersey? I understand fully that these hypothetical questions are difficult to answer - the point I'm trying to make is that battlecruisers really were not intended to engage battleships head on.

Regardless, the entire concept was already becoming outdated by the close of WWI as engine technology began to allow battleships to make the same speeds as battlecruisers without sacrificing the armor. I find it interesting that America ever built Alaska and Guam (although our 'official' line is that they're not battlecruisers. Right.

And had she gotten that upgrade rather then the Brits using her for diplomatic missions, history may have been recorded differently.

Well, therein lies the rub. However, I'll ask you this - if she had gotten the upgrades, is she still a battlecruiser? Or, at that point, has she become a battleship?

I There is a movement in Congress to A> Dump the Gerald Ford name and scheme of naming the ships after Governmental Public Officials and to name the new ship and class USS Enterprise... It still annoys me that the WWII Enterprise was cut up for scrap.

Couldn't agree with both of these sentiments more! Enterprise and Arizona would be very fitting names indeed!

I happen to know a bit about this - I'm currently a NROTC Midshipman and I have a secret security clearance.

Some advice, midshipman. Once you make ensign, never, EVER start off a sentence with "Well, based on my experience in NROTC..."

You are absolutely correct about the top speeds. I should have clarified that it is generally not in the interest of the assembled fleet to operate at flank speed for long periods of time. None of our escorting ships (with the exception of submarines) are nuclear, so refuelling is a key consideration - not to mention the increased noise.

More to your point, from what I've gathered, Enterprise may actually be faster than any of the Nimitz carriers. I will be sad to see her go. She better be rescued, unlike the famed survivor of WWII.

Oh, and I wouldn't go writing about my clearences on a forum....

...and the name of this thread is now perfect. Question: what class of battleship/battlecruiser does everyone think is the most imposing? Beautiful?

 

[frostytheplebe]

This is harder to accurately evaluate. At Jutland, there were several factors that lead to the poor performance of British battlecruisers in general. Poor tactics, poor gunnery, and to your point, compromised construction compared to their present day German counterparts.
If you think about it, though, the whole idea of a battlecruiser at the time was to outrun anything that could defeat it while outgunning anything it could catch. Battlecruisers were originally designed to chase down and eliminate armored cruisers or other vessels that were dangerous but clearly faster than battleships. I don't think you can really argue the fact that they really had no business being at the front of a massive fleet engagement. True, the German units performed better in this particular battle, but as Quarto pointed out, it can be difficult to obtain adequate information on a class' performance from one engagement.

Ok bare with me on this one, I know I'm a scatter brain and when I get going on history, keep in mind I'm putting history, tactics and ship stats through my head all at once. So lets see if I can dope this out correctly. You make a lot of very good points about the Battlecruiser class as a whole. I would actually be very interested in your assessment of the two late WW2 era Alaska class, but thats one for another time. You are correct when you talk about the purpose of the battlecruiser. But think about, look at Jutland, the Hood Disaster, etc. In those cases where we see the major failing of the Battlecruiser, were they used for their purpose? The Hood went head on with a ship it never should have. If anything the Prince of Wales should have exchanged blows with the Bismark while the Hood was the support ship. But that wasn't the case. Hood went dead on after the Bismark with the POW bringing up the rear.

My assessment was similar to yours when it came the BC type warship. It wasn't designed for major fleet action. It was designed as a lone wolf hunter killer, a hit and run ship, and a convoy raider. Scharnhost and Gneisenau performed to near perfection at the outset of the Atlantic campaign.

So basically what I am trying to say is that while I also believe that the vessels were misused, I don't think you can say the class was a failure when they were being used and abused in ways they weren't built for.

Battlecruisers might have fared better historically in German hands also because they were employed closer to the role for which they were intended. German units often engaged in commerce raiding, where speed and hard hitting power genuinely ensured victory at that mission. The British seemed doomed to continue using battlecruisers as worthy oponents 1v1 against battleships, as evidenced by the use of Hood to hunt down and destroy the Bismark.

Agreed. They're not Battleships, and the Brits really should have known better... hindsight is 20/20 but there decisions would produce disastrous results.

If you stop to think about it, though, would Gneisenau really be able to engage Yamato or New Jersey? I understand fully that these hypothetical questions are difficult to answer - the point I'm trying to make is that battlecruisers really were not intended to engage battleships head on.

No, they wouldn't. Maybe Scharnhost and Gneisenau together may have been able to pull it off, but 1v1, not a chance.

Regardless, the entire concept was already becoming outdated by the close of WWI as engine technology began to allow battleships to make the same speeds as battlecruisers without sacrificing the armor. I find it interesting that America ever built Alaska and Guam (although our 'official' line is that they're not battlecruisers. Right.

Most history books do classify them as BCs. Outdated by WW2 definitely though.

Well, therein lies the rub. However, I'll ask you this - if she had gotten the upgrades, is she still a battlecruiser? Or, at that point, has she become a battleship?

This is one question that I have been pondering for a while. To answer that, I'd need to know whether or not the secondary Armament and speed would be affected and to what degree. If they were both to remain constant, I'd say BC if the armament went up or speed went down, then reclassifying her as a BB might not be out of the question. Or perhaps as a "Fast Battleship" as the Nagato was and Iowa would be classified.

Summation: You make a lot of good points... but you may have defeated you're own argument about the failings of the class. I do not believe the BC type of ship was a failure. It was built for specific jobs and performed those near flawlessly, it wasn't until they were pressed into major fleet actions rather stupidly that they yielded disastrous results. But you can't condemn the type of ship for these failings. That's like saying the Concordia class carriers were failures because if they went head to head with a cruiser they'd lose. Well of course they'd lose, they weren't built to go into a heavy firefight.

Either way, I must say I enjoyed reading your post. It's been a while since I had a good debate about battleships.

I'll agree with that...CV-60 Saratoga was my first ship.

If you're ever in the Newport RI area just south of me, go see her. She's berthed right next to the Forrestal just beyond the Mariot courtyard undergoing repairs... really is quite a site... lets see... do I have pics...

 

[Tigerhawk]

I read an article about the new US Navy Carrier class. There is a movement in Congress to A> Dump the Gerald Ford name and scheme of naming the ships after Governmental Public Officials and to name the new ship and class USS Enterprise as the current one will be decommissioned after the USS George H. W. Bush comes online. I for one agree, there should always be an Enterprise in service. It still annoys me that the WWII Enterprise was cut up for scrap. Of all the carriers that were saved from WWII, that was the one most deserving IMO. Admiral Halsey even tried to get her saved. I do know her ship's bell and name from the fantail is at the US Naval Academy.

I've been away from the fleet for a while so I'll go with your reading, but dear lawd, I DO hope that's true! Never thought that John C. Stennis should have had a ship named after him...I rather think that no member of either the House or the Senate (save, perhaps, for John McCain) should *ever* be privvy to that honor.

Ever.

Even the book series by James H. Cobb (Choosers of the Slain, Sea Strike) names a fictional stealth destroyer the Cunningham. As in Duke Cunningham. As in disgraced, serving time politician Cunningham. Yes, they were written pre-scandal, but it makes me wish there was a complete rewrite of those two books simply to change the name in multiple instances.

My buddy was stationed on the Kitty Hawk in the years leading up to its retirement. You want loud? From what he told me, his ears still haven't stopped ringing.

Oh, I didn't say it was loud. I meant that my teeth rattled inside my skull.

Some advice, midshipman. Once you make ensign, never, EVER start off a sentence with "Well, based on my experience in NROTC..."

You are absolutely correct about the top speeds. I should have clarified that it is generally not in the interest of the assembled fleet to operate at flank speed for long periods of time. None of our escorting ships (with the exception of submarines) are nuclear, so refuelling is a key consideration - not to mention the increased noise.

More to your point, from what I've gathered, Enterprise may actually be faster than any of the Nimitz carriers. I will be sad to see her go. She better be rescued, unlike the famed survivor of WWII.

Oh, and I wouldn't go writing about my clearences on a forum....

...and the name of this thread is now perfect. Question: what class of battleship/battlecruiser does everyone think is the most imposing? Beautiful?

Heh...indeed. Talking about experiences in NROTC (especially to old salts) would be like talking shop to NASCAR crew chiefs based on what you saw on Days of Thunder. They just don't exactly compete. Oh, and BTW, ELTEE is right...discussing your current security clearance, especially on an unclassified medium such as this, while seemingly harmless, might become a rather interestingly not-so-good idea.

Battleship "porn"...so Wrong and yet so True...

As far as my opinion on the most imposing/beautiful class? Just my opinion, but the Iowas, without question. Even more so with the upgrades done to those four in the '70s-'80s. The 16-inch'ers would be horrifying enough to be on the receiving end of, but it's kinda hard to laugh at a ship that can loose a tactical something-or-other kiloton nuke-armed Tomahawk that can deliver that Shake 'n Bake load right to your front porch. Her lines are pretty clean, her bow is angular and sweet.

At some point, I'll have to upload the Polaroids I took of the Iowa back when I was in NJROTC (even worse!! heh) when my unit toured the Coral Sea...Iowa was docked right next to her at Norfolk...pre-Turret 2 disaster, of course.

 

[frostytheplebe]

As far as my opinion on the most imposing/beautiful class? Just my opinion, but the Iowas, without question. Even more so with the upgrades done to those four in the '70s-'80s. The 16-inch'ers would be horrifying enough to be on the receiving end of, but it's kinda hard to laugh at a ship that can loose a tactical something-or-other kiloton nuke-armed Tomahawk that can deliver that Shake 'n Bake load right to your front porch. Her lines are pretty clean, her bow is angular and sweet.

The most imposing class in my opinion was definitely the Yamoto... you did not want to see that thing coming at you, I don't care what ship you were on.

Most beautiful class? Are we talking just battleship or any? Well heres my take:

Carrier: Lexington

Battleship: USS Connecticut

OVERALL: USS Brooklyn (Armored Cruiser # 3, CA-3). I have an awesome 110 year old sterioview of her I wish I could up load.

 

[Tigerhawk]

If you think about it, though, the whole idea of a battlecruiser at the time was to outrun anything that could defeat it while outgunning anything it could catch. Battlecruisers were originally designed to chase down and eliminate armored cruisers or other vessels that were dangerous but clearly faster than battleships. I don't think you can really argue the fact that they really had no business being at the front of a massive fleet engagement. True, the German units performed better in this particular battle, but as Quarto pointed out, it can be difficult to obtain adequate information on a class' performance from one engagement.

Battlecruisers might have fared better historically in German hands also because they were employed closer to the role for which they were intended. German units often engaged in commerce raiding, where speed and hard hitting power genuinely ensured victory at that mission. The British seemed doomed to continue using battlecruisers as worthy oponents 1v1 against battleships, as evidenced by the use of Hood to hunt down and destroy the Bismark.

If you stop to think about it, though, would Gneisenau really be able to engage Yamato or New Jersey? I understand fully that these hypothetical questions are difficult to answer - the point I'm trying to make is that battlecruisers really were not intended to engage battleships head on.

Regardless, the entire concept was already becoming outdated by the close of WWI as engine technology began to allow battleships to make the same speeds as battlecruisers without sacrificing the armor. I find it interesting that America ever built Alaska and Guam (although our 'official' line is that they're not battlecruisers. Right.

Okay, so here's some possibly boring stuff in direct-type from a couple of books my dad gave me a long time ago called "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of 20th Century Weapons & Warfare".

On German battlecruisers (i.e., the "pocket battleships", taken on the article on Admiral Graf Spee: "The Admiral Graf Spee...and her sister Admiral Scheer were beamier versions of the prototype Deutschland, and had less range...and were, in fact, only very heavily gunned heavy cruisers...but above all by concealing the true tonnage, produced a warship with heavy gunpower and impressive range. Here, apparently, was the ideal commerce-raider, faster than anything more powerful (apart from a handful of battlecruisers) and more powerful than anything faster".

More interestingly, though, on the Alaska: "Although always regarded as battlecruisers, the official designation of these unusual ships was 'CB', or large cruiser. The original class of six ships was conceived as a reply to the German 'pocket battleships' and the imaginary Chichibu class which US Naval Intelligence then believed the Japanese to be building."

If you're ever in the Newport RI area just south of me, go see her. She's berthed right next to the Forrestal just beyond the Mariot courtyard undergoing repairs... really is quite a site... lets see... do I have pics...

Ohhh...ohhh, my baby! Frosty, you just became my favorite poster.

Seriously, thank you. I now have San Francisco and Newport on my list of To Visit sites, specifically for Iowa and, now, Saratoga.

 

[frostytheplebe]

Ohhh...ohhh, my baby! Frosty, you just became my favorite poster.

Seriously, thank you. I now have San Francisco and Newport on my list of To Visit sites, specifically for Iowa and, now, Saratoga.

HAHAHAHA!!! Well you sir are very welcome. Just so you know though, you can't get aboard her at this point, and the condition she's in is rather terrible (note that she is clearly listing to port in one of the pics.

My father an I are big navy buffs. I was online searching one day for ships on Google Earth. I found quite an impressive collection, including a huge sub base containing several Akula and Typhoon class subs in Russia. Then I look at the port in Newport and was like, "Wow that ship is huge..." As I zoom in on it, I was like, "Wait... thats not one ship thats... TWO CARRIERS LESS THEN 20 MILES SOUTH OF ME!?"

I was always pissed because back in the day, Massachusetts turned down berthing the Lexington here and took the USS Salem instead. Texas got the Lex (What a rip). So the closest carrier was the Intrepid out in New York, or so I thought. Now I know I've got two beautiful specimens just south of me.

 

[Tigerhawk]

HAHAHAHA!!! Well you sir are very welcome. Just so you know though, you can't get aboard her at this point, and the condition she's in is rather terrible (note that she is clearly listing to port in one of the pics.

My father an I are big navy buffs. I was online searching one day for ships on Google Earth. I found quite an impressive collection, including a huge sub base containing several Akula and Typhoon class subs in Russia. Then I look at the port in Newport and was like, "Wow that ship is huge..." As I zoom in on it, I was like, "Wait... thats not one ship thats... TWO CARRIERS LESS THEN 20 MILES SOUTH OF ME!?"

I was always pissed because back in the day, Massachusetts turned down berthing the Lexington here and took the USS Salem instead. Texas got the Lex (What a rip). So the closest carrier was the Intrepid out in New York, or so I thought. Now I know I've got two beautiful specimens just south of me.

Oh yeah, they don't exactly look in the best of shape. They'll probably be sitting there for some time...Jacksonville lobbied hard to get Saratoga as a museum, as her entire career was at Mayport. Very obviously, though, the effort failed, as they couldn't raise enough money. I always thought that the weirdest thing...the largest city in the U.S. (landwise speaking, anyway) doesn't have enough contributors????? Just seeing her with the Mark I Eyeball, though, getting aboard or not, would be great.

Heh, I went aboard the Lady Lex when I was at leadership school about eight years ago. The sailor in me was horrified...they put an IMAX in her up forward! Felt funny though...after doing time aboard a Nimitz, she's indeed a "small" one. Relatively speaking, of course.