Navy reusing state names as ships. All are now subs.

[SonnyDaze]

Originally posted by: jammur21
What about naming them after medal of honor winners from all branches?

I believe those are reserved for the MPS ships. They are ships that carry supplies.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
battleships will always be infinitely more bada$$ than subs

If that was even remotely true they'd still be building them. Battleships were probably the most expensive and least effective weapons in military history. They never truly impacted the outcome of any war.

Then you need to read up on your battleship history. Battleships played a huge part in WWI, in the Jap/Russian war, WWII, even Korea and Vietnam.

Look at the vast amount of British naval resources just one battleship, the Bismarck, tied up.

Same with the German pocket battleship, the Graf Spee.

The Bismarck's sister ship, Tirpitz, impacted shipping until nearly the end of the war, just by existing.
Look up Convoy PQ 17. 25 out of 36 ships lost, simply because intelligence reported the Tirpitz was hunting them, so the convoy scattered and the U-boats slaughtered them.
Tirpitz never even left port.

The loss of the US battleline at Pearl Harbor forced the US to fight a carrier war. This would not have been the US Navy's first choice to battle the Japs if all the BB's were still intact.

Korea...only the USS Missouri was still in service at the start of the war. The US Navy quickly recommissioned the rest of the Iowa class when they saw how effective Missouri was.

Vietnam...USS New Jersey was quickly recommissioned and spent a bit of time off the coast of Vietnam. Whenever the VC heard the Jersey was nearby, they would evactuate the entire area in range of her guns.
They did no such thing when carriers were nearby.
In fact, they feared the New Jersey so much that one of the conditions for them to start negotiations was that she be removed from the area.

Prior to WWI, nations with battleships would often send them to "show the flag" off the coast of hotspots of conflict, etc. Often just the arrival of a few BB's was enough to calm everyone down and avoid war or stop uprisings.

The Battleship Arms Race leading up to WWI was one of the contributing factors to the start of the war.

Our troops could still use some battleship support today. There's basically nothing that can resist their fire, and only a couple of countries have any missiles that could severely damage a BB....and that's if the missile could even get through. And Battleships are still some of the fastest, and maybe even THE fastest ships in the fleet.
The Navy is wasting time building the next version of the modern day BB, which probably won't be ready for another 10-15 years, while they could have 4 kick-ass BB's in service right now.
What would North Korea have thought a year or so ago if Bush could have sent a couple of BB's to patrol offshore? Something like 70% of NK's military targets are in range of the 16 inchers.
Battleships intimidate. They inspire awe. They are beautiful.
When the USS Missouri was recommissioned in the 80's, over 10,000 people turned out.
On her shakedown cruise, and basically a world tour, people in foreign countries regularly jammed the shoreline just to get a glimpse of a real battleship.
Contrast this with our supercarriers visiting, with minimal attendance by foreign gawkers.

I can keep on all night about the effectiveness of battleships, but you get the idea.

yip, you speak the truth. BB's were a symbol of power and in their time created a lot of fear. like you said about the bizmark, the brits devoted nearly every single warship in the atlantic to the bizmark hunt.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

There were several smaller actions....Jutland was just the only time the entire fleets of both sides fought.

Tirpitz....she affected shipping for nearly the entire war, without hardly ever even going to sea. Just the rumor of her being at sea cause an entire convoy to scatter and most of it be lost to U-boats and aircraft as a result. How many ships were lost because so many units were assigned to guard against her breaking out that they couldn't help out elsewhere? The battleships that patrolled in areas where Tirpitz might have sailed didn't cost the Germans any U-boats...but they did tie up themselves and their escorting fleet simply because of the fear the Tirpitz caused....simpy by BEING.

The Graf Spee's hunting spree had the Brits pulling their hair out trying to find here, and made world news when she was cornered and finally scuttled. You think that's not making an impact? Her leaving port was covered on radio around the world.

Battleships were key at Normandy. A German general even remarked that the gunfire of the Allied BB's was a major factor in stopping the German's counterattack efforts.

They were also key in the Pacific. Nearly every island assault was supported by battleships. They did a far better job of "softening up" the shore than aircraft did.
And I think you missed my point about the US strategy in the Pacific: I say that the US strategy would have been much different, especially to start with, if the battle line hadn't been destroyed at Pearl Harbor. Our main focus would have been bringing the Jap fleet to a surface action and destroying them ship to ship, with the carriers as escorts for the BB's. And many Jap admirals wanted the same thing.
Pearl Harbor forced us to use the carriers as our main offensive weapon, because we had only a handful of battleships left.

And I noticed you conveniently didn't respond to the facts about BB's in Korea and Vietnam.

I'm not saying that battleships are the greatest weapon afloat or have been anytime in the last 60 years, but they DO have a place in today's Navy. There is absolutely zero heavy fire support in the Navy right now, and there's no reason for it. The Navy can't bitch about manpower, because they have retired a carrier or two without replacing them, and there's enough personell on a carrier to crew 2 or more battleships. The impression they make when showing the flag alone is worth having them, not to mention their fire support potential.
Plus, there have been plans for years for 16" submunitions that can be fired 50-100 miles. The range argument is invalid.

I left out Vietnam and Korea because I know far less about either of those conflicts.

Re: Tirpitz. Like I said before, it tied down a large quantity of resources that could have been used elsewhere. However, its contributions to the Atlantic war are minimal compared to the contributions of submarines.

The Graf Spee, again, is a great example of a convoy raider who cost the British dearly. Yet, she too went to the bottom. The shipping she sank, although important, was quickly replaced. Like the Tirpitz and the Bismarck, I would argue that if the Germans had used those resources to produce submarines, it would have been a more productive use of resources.

I never contended they were key during landings. Serving as mobile artillery platforms was, in fact, their greatest contribution and one which cannot be underestimated, but to say that the US strategy would have been different had the battleships not been sunk I think is a misinterpretation. First, I'm not really sure it's valid to say the battleship was important because if (if is a key word) they hadn't been sunk they would have (key again) made a bigger contribution. Counter factual history is fun, but it doesn't strike me like a solid foundation for this argument.

Looking at the facts, Pearl Harbor left the US without much of a navy at all. By 1945 we had built the vast majority of our naval, air, and ground forces. There was a conscious decision made to invest heavily in aircraft carriers at the expense of heavier battleships. Hence, the composition of our navy by 1945 included a far larger number of carriers than battleships.

Expanding the argument, look at the two greatest battleships built - the Yamamoto and Musashi. Both were sunk without ever seeing a day of combat.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Expanding the argument, look at the two greatest battleships built - the Yamamoto and Musashi. Both were sunk without ever seeing a day of combat.

That depends on your opinion of greatest. The Iowas were probably the pinnacle of battleship design (that were actually constructed) when it comes to a balance of armor/speed/firepower.

Part of the problem with the Yamato and Musashi were usually held back in expectation of the single massive/decisive engagement that most Japanese tactics were built around. That however of course never came to pass.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
I left out Vietnam and Korea because I know far less about either of those conflicts.

Re: Tirpitz. Like I said before, it tied down a large quantity of resources that could have been used elsewhere. However, its contributions to the Atlantic war are minimal compared to the contributions of submarines.

The Graf Spee, again, is a great example of a convoy raider who cost the British dearly. Yet, she too went to the bottom. The shipping she sank, although important, was quickly replaced. Like the Tirpitz and the Bismarck, I would argue that if the Germans had used those resources to produce submarines, it would have been a more productive use of resources.

I never contended they were key during landings. Serving as mobile artillery platforms was, in fact, their greatest contribution and one which cannot be underestimated, but to say that the US strategy would have been different had the battleships not been sunk I think is a misinterpretation. First, I'm not really sure it's valid to say the battleship was important because if (if is a key word) they hadn't been sunk they would have (key again) made a bigger contribution. Counter factual history is fun, but it doesn't strike me like a solid foundation for this argument.

Looking at the facts, Pearl Harbor left the US without much of a navy at all. By 1945 we had built the vast majority of our naval, air, and ground forces. There was a conscious decision made to invest heavily in aircraft carriers at the expense of heavier battleships. Hence, the composition of our navy by 1945 included a far larger number of carriers than battleships.

Expanding the argument, look at the two greatest battleships built - the Yamamoto and Musashi. Both were sunk without ever seeing a day of combat.

It's the Yamato, and the Musashi. The Yamato did in fact see combat, and sunk one or two of our smaller carriers. Plus, it took LOADS of torpedo and bomb hits to sink each ship....and neither had any air protection....still took several hours each.
Also, you have to remember that the Japanese really didn't have enough oil left to send any significant fleet into action the last couple years of the war. Yamato was lost on a 1-way suicide mission.
I would also disagree that they are the greatest battleships ever built. The biggest, certainly, but I think the US Iowa class was a match for them. Both could penetrate each other's armor, but the Iowas were considerable faster, and had much better fire control.

I'll have to disagree that by 1945 we had a "far" larger number of carriers. If you include those little jeep carriers that were converted to carry a few planes and escort convoys, then maybe.
But if you count REAL carriers, then I don't think so. By 1945 we had about 27 carriers.
We had 26 battleships. That is not "far" more. Especially when you consider that battleships are much more complicated to build than carriers. Several carriers can be built in the time it takes to build 1 battleship...and the USA did just that during the war.

Also, to say the Pearl Harbor left the US without much of a navy is incorrect. We lost 5 of 8 battleships. It was a great blow to our pride, but not so much to the actual fleet ships.
It was enough to make us shift our strategy from battleship action supported by carriers to carriers supported by battleships.
We did not start building the fleet that we had at the end of the war right after Pearl Harbor. All the battleships and carriers were already either building or scheduled. Those schedules were tweaked here and there, but we were already gearing up for war.

In fact, several of the new battleships were already in the water, complete and working out bugs in trials when Pearl Harbor happened. They were put into service within 6 months of Pearl Harbor.
This is why the first ships to leave Pearl after the attack were sent on to the States for complete overhauls and reconstruction, instead of putting them right back into the fleet.
I will reiterate that the battleline being lost at Pearl shifted our thinking of how the war should be fought, mainly out of necessity.
I'm not doing a "what if" here....this is fact. We already knew that war with Japan was inevitable, and we were not making our plans with carriers leading the way.
The battleship's importance can't be understated, even though the carrier really came of age during WWII. Not only did battleships possess unmatched firepower vs. land and sea targets, they also had unmatched firepower against planes, too. After the battles around the Guadalcanal area showed what the AA firepower of the new battleships could do (South Dakota and North Carolina), the carriers didn't want to go anywhere without them the rest of the war. The North Carolina put on such a show during an attack, that the Enterprise called over and asked if she was on fire.

I'll also touch again on the Graf Spee...yes, she was sunk...by her crew. Scuttled, because the British were successful in fooling the Germans into believing they had an overwhelming force waiting for her outside the harbor....when in fact, all they had was one additional old cruiser. The point was, though, that one small battleship took an entire navy's focus away from other tasks just to sink her.

And regarding the Tirpitz....you're missing the point, still. You admit she tied down huge amounts of resources, yet say that she didn't do as much as U-boats did. Think of it this way: If one U-boat was stationed where Tirpitz was the entire war, do you think the British would have cared enough to dedicate the same, massive amount of resources to sinking it? Hell no, because the potential damage the Tirpitz could cause was FAR greater than even a pack of U-boats. The Tirpitz could sink an entire convoy if she was set loose....a whole pack of U-boats never did that. Not the ship's fault that Hitler was a coward at sea, and didn't allow his capital ships to be used wisely.
Also, doesn't it make sense that the Allies could have used more of their naval resources to fight the U-boats if they didn't have to account for Tirpitz for practically the entire war? So no, the Tirpitz did not do as much actual battle damage to the Allies as U-boats did...then again, there were hundreds of U-boats. But she was a far greater threat than any U-boat, and therefore tied down a large amount of naval units that could have been employed elsewhere...which cost the Allies in other areas than actual cargo ships lost.