Jump to content

Vettish

Beta Testers
  • Content Сount

    74
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    2741
  • Clan

    [SIX]

Community Reputation

16 Neutral

About Vettish

  • Rank
    Petty Officer
  • Insignia
  1. Also, when BBs did leave port they were often in the company of CVs. CVs were almost always the priority target of any attack so BBs were seldom attacked while in the company of CVs.
  2. Vettish

    Best trained Navy of WWII?

    No man, it was just ice cream!
  3. No bud, not the typo. The whole idea of yours that battleships were not obsolete early in WW2. I disagree with this opinion. In certain situations under certain conditions they could be formidable opponents. Under most conditions, especially in the PTO, they were at a disadvantage against air power. Could they shoot down some planes in their own defense? Why yes, but whats a few planes compared to sinking or disabling a major asset like a BB, or even a cruiser for that matter?
  4. Completion of the Montana class would have given the late 1940s U.S. Navy a total of seventeen new battleships, a considerable advantage over any other nation, or probable combination of nations. The Montanas also would have been the only American ships to come close to equalling the massive Japanese Yamato. However, World War II's urgent requirements for more aircraft carriers, amphibious and anti-submarine vessels resulted in suspension of the Montanas in May 1942, before any of their keels had been laid. In July 1943, when it was clear that the battleship was no longer the dominant element of sea power, their construction was cancelled. https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/photography/us-navy-ships/battleships/montana-class-bb-67-71.html
  5. This is the original line/s, which I believe is flawed, that I am trying to reference all of these replies to.
  6. Please remember the context of this argument. Were battleships obsolete in the first stages of WW2 or not. I content they are, others think they were not. What I am trying to say is, had the USN fleet been at sea, any losses would have gone to the bottom with no chance of salvage. Would all of the battleships been lost? I don't know, nor does anyone. But one thing, I believe, is clear. Many of the battleships would have been lost forever. Remember, of all the IJN planes to attack Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, only a portion of them attacked the fleet proper. Many of them were directed to other targets. This would not have been the case if they were attacked at sea. Also, the planned third strike did not happen as well as follow on attacks as the IJN fleet recovered the first and second strikes. If the USN had no air support from friendly carriers, there is little doubt the IJN would have had a field day. Would the IJN sustained losses? Of course but the US battle fleet would have been ravaged. Please explain the torpedo hit the Penn sustained near the end of the war that effectively ended her service. If all of the torpedo hits were in ideal positions, yes they should be able to shrug off several hits but as the Bismark displayed, this does not always happen does it? Please people, what I am trying to convey is this: CVs were vastly superior to BBs at the beginning, middle and end of WW2. Sure, this was more pronounced the further the war progressed but even early war USN and IJN CVs would have been completely devastating to any BBs from any nation had they been caught without air support. Were BBs useless? Of course not! Were they obsolete? Of course they were! Why else would everyone with half a brain stop making them?
  7. Neptune's Inferno was indeed an excellent read. I highly recommend it. Shattered Sword is another good read, it is kind of a new take on the Battle of Midway.
  8. Ok, first, the Royal Navy is a poor standard as I have stated. I'll site the After Action Report of the USS Yorktown during the battle of Midway. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/archives/digitized-collections/action-reports/wwii-battle-of-midway/uss-yorktown-action-report.html 17 'Val" dive bombers attacked a completely ready for action Yorktown with a full cap and escort under full steam. You can't get more ready that she was. The result? Three bomb hits. I cannot easily find how many "Kates" attacked the Yorktown on the second attack but it was a smaller group than the first if I recall correctly. The Yorktown was slowed to 20kts due to the early damage from the Val attacks but still able to avoid at least two torps before one hit. So in two half assed piecemeal attacks by a stunned IJN airgroup (after seeing three of the four carriers set afire and flying non stop all day) managed to cripple a fully prepared USS Yorktown with a full CAP of very good pilots and a full escort with the best of the time naval AA. I wonder what a fully ready and coordinated group would do to a USN standard, with or without escort and without a CAP?
  9. Facts? ROFL! Like the facts I quoted you on?
  10. The Kirishima was sunk by the USS Washington not North Carolina and Kirishima did not disable her in any way, she disabled herself as has been pointed out here on many threads. Besides, by your reasoning, Kirishima was not sunk by anybody but her own crew as she was scuttled. Fuso was sunk at Surigao by torps from American DDs, most probably from the USS Melvin, not USN BBs. These are but a few of the most glaring problems with your posts. I would submit to you, maybe you should consult some history either online from a good source or some good history books that are readily available online for very reasonable prices if you are willing to get used copies. I cannot continue to debate with someone who does not have a firm grasp of the facts of the subject at hand and without the drive to go find the very easily accessible pertinent information. I think it is called willful ignorance? To be clear, I do not intend this as an insult. I hope you do not take it this way for it is not intended. I love when people want to learn about this subject which I hold dear! I sincerely hope you research this information and improve upon your knowledge on the subject! I wish you luck and a great day!
  11. I went and ordered another book! The Conquering Tide: War in the Pacific Islands, 1942-1944 (Pacific War Trilogy) Toll, Ian W.
  12. @Royeaux I suggest try reading some history. It may help you with your problems. Good luck! Oh no! I've been downvoted!
  13. I did not say Ark Royal, I said Royal Navy. And using the Royal Navy carriers as a standard of carrier capabilities is a poor choice. First, they had no rivals. No one else had carriers at all in Europe. Second, they did not have an independent air arm, their aircraft were hopelessly obsolete and their tactics were second class at best if compared to the USN or IJN. I think most of the problems carriers ran into early was was not due to the equipment but by tactics, strategies and experience of the admirals. The IJN was at the cutting edge of carrier tactics and their pilots were the best in the world at what they did but the USN caught up fast. The Royal Navy was fighting a different fight. They never had to adapt like the USN did and they were built for a different purpose. So, by your definition, none of the IJN carriers were lost to USN aircraft? None of them were outright sunk on the spot. They burned for hours and some were scuttled by the IJN if I remember correctly. Land based aircraft are, most of the time, not designed for anti ship capabilities but rather adapted. Sometimes this works out great but often not so much. It is true that land based aircraft can often have better performance and/or payload but this does not mean they are better for the intended role of sinking ships. Do you think the B-26 used at Midway was a better platform than the TBF Avenger used during the same battle? Besides aircraft capability, most important is training. You can put a turd in the most advanced aircraft in the world and said turd will not be able to accomplish a combat mission. The aviators that attacked the PoW and Repulse had but a fraction of the anti ship training of the Kidō Butai Kate pilots. You can argue that the Betty was a better torpedo bomber platform but you cannot argue the pilots were of the same caliber. Lets set up a scenario. For whatever reason, the US was involved in WW2 when the Bismark sortied. And for whatever reason, the USS Yorktown and USS Ranger was in a position to intercept. Do you think the Bismark would have survived the air attacks and caught and sunk the two US carriers then continued with her mission? Of course not. Even if she was not sunk outright within hours or being sighted, the most likely outcome, her mission would have been over before it began. This, by the way, is what happened. You see, the aircraft carrier is not just the counter to battleships. They are the counter to everything. What was the best countermeasure to the wolf packs in the Battle of the Atlantic? Planes. What was the best cover for a beach landing? Planes. What weapon system sank more warships during WW2 than any other? Planes. What weapon system was best for disrupting communications? Planes. What weapon system was best for recon? Planes. What carried planes to where land based aircraft could not reach?
  14. This is true. Good point.
  15. At this point I don't know what to say I guess... The USS Lexington was sunk during the battle of Coral Sea by an internal explosion due to fumes spreading throughout the ship and set off by a spark from a generator. The fumes were a direct result from battle damage from IJN aircraft. The USS Yorktown was sunk while in tow being completely without power with a severe list after suffering several attacks from IJN aircraft. She was happened upon by I-168. Technically she was sunk by submarine attack but was effectively disabled by air attack. I guess you are one of the "Bismark was never sunk by the Royal Navy" types huh? The USN and Italian navy lost few ships in these two examples because of the shallow harbors, not because the air attacks were ineffective. Just look how the Prince of Wales and Repulse fared against air attack. And before you try the "but this was land based aircraft, not carrier borne aircraft so its different" argument, yes but carrier borne aircraft were by and large more effective against ships due to their designs as well as training. The PoW and Repulse would have gone down much faster had they been set upon by the Kidō Butai.
×