Yet another WW2 could Germany have won if... thread

[thedarkendstar]

The Gerald R. Ford has a crew complement of over 2600, thanks to advancements in automation and design since its Nimitz-class predecessors. The Iowa had a complement of over 2700. They're about on par, which superficially would hypothetically raise the question of which supercarrier we decide to cancel in order to crew an Iowa were we to reactivate them. More practically, of course, if we need to activate the Iowas, we'll probably also need the supercarriers so it won't be an either-or. In addition, we're already building the infrastructure to support the Fords as well, while the infrastructure to support the Iowas has been greatly reduced ever since we stopped operating them.

EDIT: Whoops, I grabbed the wrong numbers for the Iowa-class battleships. They cut the complement down by a thousand around the 1980s modernizations, so it should only require 1600-1800 to operate them. My error, and it should balance it a bit more nicely.

So under emergency operation say some large conflict were to break out would we reasonably be able to bring them back into service?

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

And to add to others, let's not forget the impact that the large battleships had during the Normandy campaign. Warspite wore out most of her main guns during op Neptune!

USS Texas. Who won a battle star at Normandy, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa.

Texas was an obsolete WWI design, but the right tool at the right place.

The Manpower requirements cant be as massive as one of the new carriers can it?

Culise's numbers are close enough. Ford has a complement of around 4,300; with 2,600 crew who service just the ship and an additional 1,700 who fly, service and maintain the planes. The air wing of a US carrier can and has been known to change the outcome of international events.

The 1,800 or so sailors required to crew New Jersey form the complement of about six Arleigh Burke destroyers; given current requirements, take the destroyers.

The Iowas are only valuable as a gun platform for an amphibious invasion. Unless you plan on landing a hell of a big force on a contested beach, keep it in mothballs.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

So under emergency operation say some large conflict were to break out would we reasonably be able to bring them back into service?

Absolutely. The Iowas would require a refit coming out of mothballs depending on their mission requirements but are very serviceable.

You may remember a few years back a group of extra-terrestrials invaded the planet, and only USS Missouri could end the threat. Very realistic. I truly enjoyed the scene of the the Missouri, at flank speed, dropping anchor and turning on a dime to deliver a vital broadside to the alien invader.

I think Graf Zep had a thread about that a while back.

 

[bz249]

Battleships were certainly getting on. But I wouldn't say they were obsolete in 1939; even in 1945 they certainly had their uses as gun platforms and in fighting off other BBs.

Moreover, one has to look at it from the perspective of interwar naval planners. Naval airpower in 1939 was a very sketchy prospect still; aircraft weren't very advanced, and particularly for powers focused their naval development outside the Pacific (i.e., everyone but the USA, Japan, and to a lesser extent Britain) there's little to suggest land based air can't to an extent fill the hole better (more advanced aircraft, cheaper basing requirements). The superiority of the carrier over the battleship wasn't an outright truth at that point, and it only looks that way with our hindsight. Even that in itself may be a product of the circumstances of the war; the two major potential battleship clashes were the Pacific (USA vs Japan) and the Mediterranean (UK vs Italy), and in both cases BBs were relegated to a background role as much by circumstance as anything else (i.e., the USA having to rely on carriers due to BB losses). There's also the risk to consider; if you don't build BBs and everyone else does, then how can you be sure you have a counter to other BBs, how can you match their ability to provide shore bombardment, and what do you do if through bad luck or otherwise it proves possible for BBs to close the distance before they can be sunk, and they go on to trash a carrier fleet at close range?

One can also point to times when BBs sank carriers, or came close to doing so; Scharnhorst sank Glorious early in the war, whilst even later on at Leyte the Japanese almost got a chance to cause havoc.

Well the dreadnought battleship was never a good tool for the intended purpose (i.e to control the seas) because they sucked in the brown water environment and were bad at stopping raiders let alone submersibles. WW1 and WW2 have shown they are just expensive showboats meant for peacetime waiving the flag operations not weapons of war sent in the harms way. Sure the USN and the RN would have loved a clash of battlelines, but their enemies with a weaker battleline just did not play like that, and that is the key weakness: a dreadnought cannot force a weaker opponent to fight. A carrier can.
Now fast forward to Operation Crossroads in 1946, while armored ships survived a small nuclear device surprisingly well... but anything within 1 km was dead or mission killed anyway, which means that the defining feature of the ship of line, namely nothing smaller has a chance of harming them is forever gone. Anything with 6" and above (or with missile, or with bomb, or with torpedo, or mine) can sank a battleship with ease.

 

[DoomBunny]

Thats exactly what I said. You should have quoted someone else with that. Or was this meant as as support of my point ?

The latter.

Taffy 3 actually works against your argument that battleships in line of battle had value at the end of WWII. It is an argument that proves the value of radar-guided 5" ring guns vs. optically aimed heavy caliber armament of the Imperial Japanese Navy in the greatest World of Warships replay ever. And, it is direct proof of the skill and professionalism of the US Navy at all levels during WWII.

Line of Battle was rarely seen in WWII between capital ships. However, battleships are not obsolete during WWII, their role simply changed. Nor were they obsolete during Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Persian Gulf I, or today. But they will never be built like that again. The only four relvelant ships left today are the Iowas. Their great asset are those gorgeous 16" naval rifles and their extreme speed that allows them to easily keep up with a carrier task force. Their problem is the extreme manpower required to keep them operational at sea for long periods of time.

If the Japanese had pushed their advantage properly, then I think one would see a different outcome.

Well the dreadnought battleship was never a good tool for the intended purpose (i.e to control the seas) because they sucked in the brown water environment and were bad at stopping raiders let alone submersibles. WW1 and WW2 have shown they are just expensive showboats meant for peacetime waiving the flag operations not weapons of war sent in the harms way. Sure the USN and the RN would have loved a clash of battlelines, but their enemies with a weaker battleline just did not play like that, and that is the key weakness: a dreadnought cannot force a weaker opponent to fight. A carrier can.
Now fast forward to Operation Crossroads in 1946, while armored ships survived a small nuclear device surprisingly well... but anything within 1 km was dead or mission killed anyway, which means that the defining feature of the ship of line, namely nothing smaller has a chance of harming them is forever gone. Anything with 6" and above (or with missile, or with bomb, or with torpedo, or mine) can sank a battleship with ease.

I think the First World War actually proved rather handily that the dreadnought was an excellent tool for control of the seas; British naval superiority allowed a blockade of Germany and certainly contributed to winning the war. Similar might be said of the Mediterranean in the Second World War, or indeed the conduct of the German surface fleet after the initial losses. Indeed, for a navy to be of use, it does not have to fight; the fleet in being is often enough to contribute to the war effort.

 

[bz249]

The latter.



If the Japanese had pushed their advantage properly, then I think one would see a different outcome.



I think the First World War actually proved rather handily that the dreadnought was an excellent tool for control of the seas; British naval superiority allowed a blockade of Germany and certainly contributed to winning the war. Similar might be said of the Mediterranean in the Second World War, or indeed the conduct of the German surface fleet after the initial losses. Indeed, for a navy to be of use, it does not have to fight; the fleet in being is often enough to contribute to the war effort.

Well unrestricted submarine warfare almost brought the UK to its knees... so what was exactly achieved by the dreadnought fleet? And the need to counter the HSF meant that those dreadnoughts are permanently locked in Scapa. So it was a waste of resources for both sides and achieved nothing but strategic paralysys where neither side could make a move.

 

[DoomBunny]

Well unrestricted submarine warfare almost brought the UK to its knees... so what was exactly achieved by the dreadnought fleet? And the need to counter the HSF meant that those dreadnoughts are permanently locked in Scapa. So it was a waste of resources for both sides and achieved nothing but strategic paralysys where neither side could make a move.

Keeping the HSF in port for most of the war (and preventing it from adding to the blockade in question), preventing it from playing any significant role in the war effort (aside from bombarding a few coastal towns and Baltic operations), eventually contributing to its mutiny which was the catalyst for collapse. Aside from that one can add the role the surface fleet played in blockading Germany, which wouldn't have been possible if German dreadnoughts were blasting British cruisers at will. The Grand Fleet was not strategically paralyzed in the First World War, far from it; by staying where it was and not fighting battles it achieved everything necessary to win the naval war.

Really this argument is like suggesting nuclear weapons are a waste of money because noone ever uses them; it misses the point entirely.

 

[bz249]

Keeping the HSF in port for most of the war (and preventing it from adding to the blockade in question), preventing it from playing any significant role in the war effort (aside from bombarding a few coastal towns and Baltic operations), eventually contributing to its mutiny which was the catalyst for collapse. Aside from that one can add the role the surface fleet played in blockading Germany, which wouldn't have been possible if German dreadnoughts were blasting British cruisers at will. The Grand Fleet was not strategically paralyzed in the First World War, far from it; by staying where it was and not fighting battles it achieved everything necessary to win the naval war.

of course it was: it was a one trick pony and sat out the war... their only job was to keep the equally useless HSF at anchor.

Really this argument is like suggesting nuclear weapons are a waste of money because noone ever uses them; it misses the point entirely.

Nuclear deterrence exists (no major nuclear power was ever attacked...) dreadnoughts never had such function, because otherwise we would not had those world wars. So the analogy is false.

 

[DoomBunny]

of course it was: it was a one trick pony and sat out the war... their only job was to keep the equally useless HSF at anchor.

Or in other words, dreadnoughts were not just peacetime flag wavers; having a powerful fleet was so much of an asset that it allowed you to defeat your foe without major confrontation.

The argument that all the British dreadnoughts did was neutralize a bunch of equally useless German dreadnoughts really misses the point; forsaking dreadnoughts would have simply left one without a counter to the enemies dreadnoughts.

Nuclear deterrence exists (no major nuclear power was ever attacked...) dreadnoughts never had such function, because otherwise we would not had those world wars. So the analogy is false.

It is most certainly not, see above; dreadnoughts performed a vital function in the First World War.

 

[Kovax]

The crucial difference between dreadnaughts and nuclear weapons is that having a nuclear weapon cannot stop the other side from effectively using its own nuclear weapons, while having a dreadnaught CAN limit the other side's ability to utilize their own dreadnaught at will against your shipping lanes and lighter warships. If one side has a Dreadnaught and the other doesn't, the side with one can blockade the other (anything you send to break the blockade can be intercepted by the dreadnaught), or guard one of the few natural choke points where you can't avoid it.

The advantage of the carrier is that its effective area of coverage is far greater, so it's much harder to avoid.

 

[krieger11b]

So under emergency operation say some large conflict were to break out would we reasonably be able to bring them back into service?

Absolutely. The Iowas would require a refit coming out of mothballs depending on their mission requirements but are very serviceable.

Um no, they are no longer even mothballed, all four are museum ships now. I went to visit the USS Iowa a couple years ago in San Pedro. The engine room was a complete disaster according to the historians, most being former ship personnel from at least the same class of ship. Almost nothing else is in working order. It's not a giant rust bucket either, but it would take so much to bring it back into a serviceable military ship you might as well just build a newer and better suited battleship than bringing the Iowa Class back.

I have to admit it would be awesome to see a rail gun battleship, though the energy requirement for a broadside would be insane. If you wanted just a big shore bombardment ship then big modern mortar would be better suited than guns originally designed with piecing heavy steel armor as it's primary purpose.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Um no, they are no longer even mothballed, all four are museum ships now. I went to visit the USS Iowa a couple years ago in San Pedro. The engine room was a complete disaster according to the historians, most being former ship personnel from at least the same class of ship. Almost nothing else is in working order. It's not a giant rust bucket either, but it would take so much to bring it back into a serviceable military ship you might as well just build a newer and better suited battleship than bringing the Iowa Class back.

I have to admit it would be awesome to see a rail gun battleship, though the energy requirement for a broadside would be insane. If you wanted just a big shore bombardment ship then big modern mortar would be better suited than guns originally designed with piecing heavy steel armor as it's primary purpose.

Look, you actually have a president that is insane enough to build railgun battleships. Do something.

 

[krieger11b]

Look, you actually have a president that is insane enough to build railgun battleships. Do something.

I don't think he will, rail guns don't shoot shells that go boom, all that money for something that shoots a solid shot with minimum collateral damage SAD!

 

[yerm]

Look, you actually have a president that is insane enough to build railgun battleships. Do something.

I would love to do something. How do I let him know he has my support for this??

 

[The-Doc]

I would love to do something. How do I let him know he has my support for this??

Get a 4th grader to write the letter for you. It'll get read on national TV, I promise you.

 

[krieger11b]

Get a 4th grader to write the letter for you. It'll get read on national TV, I promise you.

Make sure to name it USS Donald Trump in the letter too. Oh and a fancy graphic of it being gold plated with bit letter T's covering the end of the barrels.

 

[yerm]

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

LMAO

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

That was funny, Yerm.

 

[keynes2.0]

Look, you actually have a president that is insane enough to build railgun battleships. Do something.

For about $15,000 you could put up a 30 second ad segment on morning cable news. Tell him that Hillary Clinton thinks we dont need a railgun battleship.