Who killed the Battleship? / Why no more battleships?

Book

Support This Channel
Join this channel to get access to perks:

Bilgepumps / Social Media Links

Other Places to Find Dr Alex Clarke

[comentedonakeyboard]

Never ask what your Battleship can do for you, but what you can do for your Battleship

[Thumpalumpacus]

The two biggest battleships in history, both killed by ... wait for it ... airplanes. There's also Bismarck sent akilter by a Swordie, Kongo sunk by a sub, and that WWI British battleship sunk by one mine. So stating that it takes a BB to kill a BB is really, pardon the pun, undermined.

Now a BB armed with long-range missiles and a healthy AA suite might be useful. You're still going to need solid ASW ships, just like flattops. But big gun ships with 20 mile shot- ranges, with 3000 sailors aboard don't represent good use of resources.

[SmilingIbis]

They're very expensive and no longer needed. A battleship is a heavily armored gun platform to blow up other ships and control sea lanes. You don't need a slow gun platform to accomplish this any more. Aircraft and later guided missiles made them more of a resource intensive liability. A bunch of smaller ships and submarines can sweep an enemy from the ocean and for much less money.

[lesliemitchell]

IMHO Battleships are not seen as a status symbol, since the other side does not have them no status in having the best. So no one wants to spend so much money, so no battleships.

[ndmmt-wukz]

I forget what book I saw this in, but there was a very informative plot which answered this question. Simple plot-- weight of fire delivered vs range for battleships vs carriers. Another discussion was the projection for wing loading and ordinance capacity for aircraft for the twenties. The plot was created in the twenties, and the experts knew that by the late thirties/early forties, aircraft could carry 500-1000kg bombs. That would dictate everything from flight deck length to catapult requirements to cable trapping requirements.

[williamzk]

-In 1943 the German Airforce deployed the Fritz-X (21 july 1943) and Hs-293 (25 August) guided missiles. Fritz-X could sink battle ships from altitudes above their effective AAA defenses and Hs-293 could sink cruisers at ranges beyond AAA defenses. Both missiles were very accurate against a moving ship.
-That marks the beginning of the end. Dive and Torpedo bombers could be destroyed by AAA defences. The launch aircraft were effectively immune.
-The allies tried jamming but did not have a viable system until their 4th attempt in 1944 (after capture of a receriver on a frtiz-x in itialy and a trasmitter on a crashed bomber in portsmouth). The Germans never detected jamming and never therefore implemented their backup systems (they had kits of radio systems operating at different frequencies, kits of wire guidance, and FM modulated system and a microwave system.
-The only thing that stopped these missiles running a rampage through allied shipping was allied escort aircraft carriers but it was only a matter of time before these missiles were launched from jets (like the Arado 234) that would be hard to intercept.
-No Amount of armour could resist these bombs.

[bassboy]

BZ Dr Clark. I discovered your channel recently via Drach (who I have followed for awhile), and really enjoy the great content you put here.

I was wondering, have you ever done a video that explores the details of why the RN did not convert Hood’s unfinished sisters to carriers, a la USN’s Lexington/Saratoga or IJN’s Akagi/Kaga?

[adfab]

What is the difference between a battleship with long range hypersonic missiles and an aircraft carrier? Also given the speed of a carrier only a very fast battleship could close to firing Which would potentially mean a battle cruiser...

[Ralph-yngr]

I have to wonder what would happen if someone developed guided shells like the Excalibur for a 16 inch gun. Wikipedia says they have a range of 35 miles. If they could push the range out to 40 or 50 miles it could make them a lot more viable.

[mitchelloates]

Basically, no one saw a threat pressing enough, to which a battleship would be the most effective counter (both militarily and cost-wise) over other available means, to justify the expense of building and maintaining new battleships post-WWII.

[EricDKaufman]

clicked simply because of the thumbnail. now present your arguement and it better be ZHUKOV WORHTY!!!

He stole that movie.

[TheLucanicLord]

7:28 [Japan raises hand] Land based aircraft?

[karlvongazenberg]

11:10 Well, not ONE missile, but maybe a dozen.

[andrewcox]

"I know which I'm going for", quickly checks duration and thinks it could go either way but for 30 minutes I'll bet on the "short" version.

[hmsverdun]

So if China were to lay down a 25, 000 ton missile cruiser (using them for convinience sake and most likely peer opponent with largest builing capacity) would the US have to respond with a similar missile equiped ship following the theory of if you dont do it you are not seen as the premier navy and dont have the presence ships you can send abroad? Not a traditional battleship but something along the lines of its size(large cruisers were capital ships in the 1900s for instance)?

[BeastofCaerBannog]

As for the western responses to Soviet programs, didn't the Russians go much further down the Cruiser road than NATO? And didn't the Royal Navy then have all kinds of fun recording their sound output by hovering just a few feet directly below their keel, completely undetected, during a major exercise?

[vincentbrown]

I see the argument that missile technology "can" make it easy to kill a battle ship (just as torpedo's did) but modern missiles are designed to kill contemporary ships (none of which have 20" of modern armor). The US has actually had trouble sinking old armored ships with modern missiles. Has anyone done the math to figure out what kind of warhead it would take to penetrate a modern battle ship (if one were to be built)? I think it likely that no presently deployed missiles could do the job. In which case only two enemies would put in the time, effort and expense to build such a missile making a modern battleship very useful against other opponents (practically unsinkable). Also, active defenses improve practically daily. A modern nuclear powered battleship with 20" armor wold have enough power to not only cruise at 50+ nm but power rail guns and multiple energy based air defenses (presently being deployed) which would dramatically lower operating costs and make them more useful than other platforms logistically. The success of Ukraine over the Russian navy shows that depending on active defenses alone is not a good strategy.

[scoutdynamics]

Nope! Samar showed that the answer to a Battleship is an Escort Carrier with planes equipped with torpedos and armor piercing bombs.

[christinarodriguez]

I must say . The combination of words like Russian and navy makes me chuckle a bit .
If one looks at their history in just maintaining any ship level is almost a meme for the Russians, The battleship they had loaned to them from the britisch didnt fare to well . on the basic maintenance part . Making the royal sovereign inoparable . the guns fixed in place as no routine rotation of the turrets was done . As any one knows that has a maritme background ships and navy ships in particular need 1 hot day of running their equipment to make sure its kept in peak efficiency . as standing still is deterioration of your machinery .