USS Alaska vs IJN Haruna

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Gunnersmate04	EF DRAAijers	#11	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 147 (15-May-2008 21:56:03) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Closet USA Hater......one of those "WW2 wouldn't have been any different outcome with or without the USA getting involved" types also I'm sure.... I could be wrong.. GUNNER
E F Draaijers		#12	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 193 (15-May-2008 22:02:33) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	BOBC 59 wrote: EF DRAAijers Is There any thing about the U S N you like?? of all your posts on USN ships there is not ONE postive post all are on the negative side! one has to wonder why that is? NUFF SAID BOBC To answer ths question, you should be able to find elsewhere in this formum, I consider the USN Aircraft Carrier supperb in all sorts of modern combat situations, so I only observe and consider any option at any time. I will not guide myself to emotional responses only of nationalism or so, but always look at both advantages and disadvantages of any sort of issue. My dualistic philosophy is very basic: "everything has its good and bad things". The USN ships and designs were (and are) good in general concept, but still had their strenghts and weaknesses. Perfection in shipdesign does not excist at all. In the modern world of the 21st century, I consider the USN to be the most powerfull fighting navy, since its SSN and CVBG forces are unmatched by either concept and numbers. To return to the battleship issue, I am not very positive about the battleship as an effective fighting unit in a WW2 setting at all, since more potent weaponplatforms already excisted in this period and any battleship is a waist of resources and money. Their day had long been gone, since the evolution of the mature aircraft and their ordonance on both ground and naval platforms, as well as the evolution of the attack submarine, against which the battleship herself had no defense at all. The old navaladmirals of the pre WW2 period still ruled and this is why battleships were still being constructed before and during WW2, while their usefullness was doubtfull. Most strikingly is the amount of energy put in the construction of the IJN Yamato class ships, resulting in both neglected ASW capacity and lesser numbers of aircraftcarriers, which cost Japan the war at sea in the end.
Craiglxviii		#13	[-]
Posts: 89 (15-May-2008 23:45:31) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	EF Draaijers: It's doubtful that perfection exists in anything, if we want to get all philosophical. Unless you're a sailor of course, in which case you're a philosopher under the skin, but I doubt that. The battleship was an effective fighting unit, WHEN EMPLOYED IN THE CORRECT MANNER, up until 1991 and Op Granby (Desert Freedom I think to you Colonials out there?). Whether "their day had long been gone" or not is highly doubtful, whatever you may want to think. An example of this would be, for instance, what would you rather be driving at Jutland, a Queen Elisabeth class BB, or a TBD? Both can sink ships, for instance- anyone here want to discount the effectiveness of German weapons (and I acknowledge that their torpedoes weren't always the most reliable)?- both can steam at high speed for their time, both were reckoned as "top of the range". I know which one I would pick, and it would have big white ensigns flying from every available stay. OK, it's not the fairest matchup in the world I know, but it illustrates my point. The same could be said of a 50 or 64 gun 2-decker by the turn of the 19th century. Outclassed by 40 gun heavy frigates, or 74 or 84-gun 2 deckers, but they'll kill you just as dead when operating under a competent commander. No-one here, not even yourself disputes the effectiveness of the CV/ CVN, yet this type of ship, without its associated ASW screen of aircraft and frigates/ destroyers is also highly vunerable to submarines. Go and read "Nimitz Class" by Patrick Robinson if you want a good, though fictionalised/ stylised account of an SSK attack on a CVBG. Without the protective ASW screen, a submerged torpedo attack could happen to any capital ship, whether aviation or gunnery based. Yes, the big-gun mindset of WW1 still ruled in most circles through the start and even middle of WW2, but by the end all major navies had or were building big carrier programs. These same admirals, or their successors, had realised the paradigm shift. Battleships, throughout WW2, operated initially as they had been intended (Denmark Straits, Cape Matapan, take your pick), then with the evolution and increased adoption of naval aviation were incorporated into the CVBG's to provide escort against both the aeroplanes from carrier distant strike, AND the battleships escorting those distant-striking carriers! For a good example of this, ask BOBC- how effective was ol' Mamie at downing Zeroes and Zekes? As good as if not better than the attendant destroyers and cruisers of the same escort screen, with the exception of carring a bazillion times more firepower. You say you look at things objectively? Try harder. Did you ever serve, in any branch of the (presumably Dutch, from your surname) forces? Your point is invalid. Thankyou for shopping at Kwikeemart. Please come again. Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now when it's worked so well?
Tiornu		#14	[-]
Posts: 7002 (16-May-2008 00:24:54) Corn Boss Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Some of you have missed that this is a discussion about warships, not about other participants. No one is under any obligation to conform his posts to what you like. A word to the wise.
Gunnersmate04	Sorry...	#15	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 149 (16-May-2008 15:05:14) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Us YANKS have a tendency to "circle the wagons" when we feel slighted...My apologies Dutch Boy....love your paint. GUNNER
E F Draaijers		#16	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 194 (16-May-2008 18:51:28) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Craiglxviii wrote: EF Draaijers: It's doubtful that perfection exists in anything, if we want to get all philosophical. Unless you're a sailor of course, in which case you're a philosopher under the skin, but I doubt that. The battleship was an effective fighting unit, WHEN EMPLOYED IN THE CORRECT MANNER, up until 1991 and Op Granby (Desert Freedom I think to you Colonials out there?). Whether "their day had long been gone" or not is highly doubtful, whatever you may want to think. An example of this would be, for instance, what would you rather be driving at Jutland, a Queen Elisabeth class BB, or a TBD? Both can sink ships, for instance- anyone here want to discount the effectiveness of German weapons (and I acknowledge that their torpedoes weren't always the most reliable)?- both can steam at high speed for their time, both were reckoned as "top of the range". I know which one I would pick, and it would have big white ensigns flying from every available stay. OK, it's not the fairest matchup in the world I know, but it illustrates my point. The same could be said of a 50 or 64 gun 2-decker by the turn of the 19th century. Outclassed by 40 gun heavy frigates, or 74 or 84-gun 2 deckers, but they'll kill you just as dead when operating under a competent commander. No-one here, not even yourself disputes the effectiveness of the CV/ CVN, yet this type of ship, without its associated ASW screen of aircraft and frigates/ destroyers is also highly vunerable to submarines. Go and read "Nimitz Class" by Patrick Robinson if you want a good, though fictionalised/ stylised account of an SSK attack on a CVBG. Without the protective ASW screen, a submerged torpedo attack could happen to any capital ship, whether aviation or gunnery based. Yes, the big-gun mindset of WW1 still ruled in most circles through the start and even middle of WW2, but by the end all major navies had or were building big carrier programs. These same admirals, or their successors, had realised the paradigm shift. Battleships, throughout WW2, operated initially as they had been intended (Denmark Straits, Cape Matapan, take your pick), then with the evolution and increased adoption of naval aviation were incorporated into the CVBG's to provide escort against both the aeroplanes from carrier distant strike, AND the battleships escorting those distant-striking carriers! For a good example of this, ask BOBC- how effective was ol' Mamie at downing Zeroes and Zekes? As good as if not better than the attendant destroyers and cruisers of the same escort screen, with the exception of carring a bazillion times more firepower. You say you look at things objectively? Try harder. Did you ever serve, in any branch of the (presumably Dutch, from your surname) forces? Your point is invalid. Thankyou for shopping at Kwikeemart. Please come again. Perhaps some remarks are at place here, since you appearently have missed the remarks mentioned earlier; namely about the effectiveness of the type of vessel in what timeframe. In WW1 the battleship of the Dreadnought type was the last and final development of the big riffled gunned ship, before becoming too oldfashoned to be the queen of the seas after the Versaille Treaty. Her place already was being threatened by newer types of weapons, other than big guns, whose development continued in the Interbellum. All battleships of the post Washington Treaty were more or less obsolete in their primary intended role, namely to rule the waves, since the evolution of the Aircraft Carrier before 1939 already threatened its existence. Although not realized, the battelship in WW2 never took her weight into action in her intended role to dominate the sea, although some nations tried to do so, but always failed, when opposed by unequal opponents (aircraft and submarines). The WW2 battelship was a secondary type of vessel, although a costly one, only usefull as an artilleryplatform for shorbombardments and as an AA platform. It could not operate without aircover and ASW escortforces, so her role was limmited.
Cross648		#17	[-]
Posts: 75 (16-May-2008 20:25:18) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I have to agree with Gunner, but Draaijers isnt a 'closet USA hater' I belive it was, he's just offering his opinions and thoughts but instead gets a considerable ammount of flak. Quite uncalled for. He didnt say 'The USN sucked, they were cowards and forced into the war like the rest of their smelly country' or words to that effect. He didnt sit there going 'US ship design is poop' but he got a barrel load of flak. Not really that nice. At least entitle someone to their opinions.
Desert Sailor	Battleship admirals	#18	[-]
Posts: 1128 (17-May-2008 05:16:24) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	IIRC some years ago Electric Joe posted an analysis that more or less debunked the myth of the conservative battleship admirals dominating thought and holding back development of carriers. I don't recall the particulars, but at the time the post made a lot of sense to me. And EJ always did his homework. Tiornu, do you remember that post? Or anybody that was around at the time? charley aka Desert Sailor
Dolphinstriker		#19	[-]
Posts: 1850 (17-May-2008 06:24:09) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	IIRC some years ago Electric Joe posted an analysis that more or less debunked the myth of the conservative battleship admirals dominating thought and holding back development of carriers. I don't recall the particulars, but at the time the post made a lot of sense to me. And EJ always did his homework. I didn't see Electric Joe's post, but I've always been of the opinion that, contrary to conventional wisdom, it wasn't so much the so-called "Gun Club" admirals that impeded development of carriers, but the pace of advance in aviation technology. There was no sense in building lots of carriers if the planes weren't sufficiently advanced to act as effective weapons at sea. And it follows that, in the absence of powerful carriers, the next best platform for sea control was a battleship. In reality, carriers did not supersede battleships in offensive power until sometime in the late 1930's and even then there were some technologies, such as communications and radar, which it was necessary to develop before the carrier could always be considered superior in power to the battleship.
Tiornu		#20	[-]
Posts: 7003 (17-May-2008 07:05:08) Corn Boss Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	There are a number of useful titles on the subject of interwar USN ideas. Wildenberg and Melhorn come to mind. You can also find a number of dissertations, like Mark Campbell's, Craig Felker's (now published, I believe), John Kuehn's, etc. Spruance came out of the war still holding the opinion that the battleship was a vital tool. My own view is that the battleship was not obsolete until the war ended. My reasoning is this--the battleship continued to be the unsurpassed platform for its intended role (sitting on a section of ocean and commanding it) throughout its career. But by 1945, the USN was so dominant that the intended role was passe. The nearest rivals to the USN were the RN, the RCN, and other Allies, so there was no need for a battleship to command the sea. The greater versatility of the aircraft carrier allowed it to adapt more usefully to the circumstances of the Cold War.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

USS Alaska vs IJN Haruna

Quick Reply