SPOILER SEASON IS OVER FOR TEiF!!!

Jonathan_S wrote:

tlb wrote:I am quite certain that the Battle of Jutland did not signify the end of the battleship. The battleship's dominance was ended by air power, which was not in evidence at Jutland; it was not until after the war that Gen. Billy Mitchell demonstrated that a bomber could sink a battleship.

And even then only in very artificial circumstances. An airplane, especially a carrier launched airplane, didn't become a mortal threat to a battleship until about 1934 -- nearly 2 decades after the Battle of Jutland. That's when the modern torpedo bombers starting coming into service.

Level bombers were only a real threat to battleships when stationary (such as while in port) or after the advent of guided armor piercing bombs like Germany's 1943 Fritz X. Dive bombers simply lacked bombs with the velocity to penetrate the deck or turret armor of a battleship. They could knock out its AA guns, wreck its bridge and upperworks, and potentially knock out its fire control directors (all useful in preparation for follow up strikes or surface combat; but were extremely unlikely to sink it, or even impair its speed or maneuverability)


If anything Jutland reinforced that to stop a a fleet of battleships you needed at least as large and capable fleet of your own battleships.

(And even in the mid-30's torpedo bombers were mostly fair weather assets -- they weren't much use at night or in bad weather. And having torpedo bombers aboard didn't save poor HMS Glorious when she was surprised by the German Scharnhorst-class battleships during the Norway campaign of WWII. So in the long nights, bad weather, and poor visibility of the North Atlantic winter its not even clear that torpedo bombers would be able to counter battleships even by the midwar period. There's a reason that convoys were normally escorted by an old battleship -- as even in the '40s the only thing you could count on to stand up to a battleship in any conditions, and even if caught by surprise, is another battleship)


And even after WWII the battleship didn't go away because it was vulnerable to aircraft. It was far less vulnerable than a carrier, cruiser, or any other warship. It went away because a carrier could strike at over 10 times the range of a battleship.

sigh

I don't recall saying anything about planes. Nor did the narrator. His point is that at Jutland many battleships were lost. And you can't keep fighting an attritional war with battleships. Yet, in WWII the order was put in for more and bigger battleships. Which led to his conclusion that ...

Jonathan_S wrote:And even after WWII the battleship didn't go away because it was vulnerable to aircraft. It was far less vulnerable than a carrier, cruiser, or any other warship. It went away because a carrier could strike at over 10 times the range of a battleship.

Hence, the title of the documentary. HE CLAIMED the writing on the wall was Jutland.

tlb wrote:I am quite certain that the Battle of Jutland did not signify the end of the battleship. The battleship's dominance was ended by air power, which was not in evidence at Jutland; it was not until after the war that Gen. Billy Mitchell demonstrated that a bomber could sink a battleship.

Jonathan_S wrote:And even then only in very artificial circumstances. An airplane, especially a carrier launched airplane, didn't become a mortal threat to a battleship until about 1934 -- nearly 2 decades after the Battle of Jutland. That's when the modern torpedo bombers starting coming into service.

Level bombers were only a real threat to battleships when stationary (such as while in port) or after the advent of guided armor piercing bombs like Germany's 1943 Fritz X. Dive bombers simply lacked bombs with the velocity to penetrate the deck or turret armor of a battleship. They could knock out its AA guns, wreck its bridge and upperworks, and potentially knock out its fire control directors (all useful in preparation for follow up strikes or surface combat; but were extremely unlikely to sink it, or even impair its speed or maneuverability)

--snip--

And even after WWII the battleship didn't go away because it was vulnerable to aircraft. It was far less vulnerable than a carrier, cruiser, or any other warship.

cthia wrote:sigh

I don't recall saying anything about planes. Nor did the narrator. His point is that at Jutland many battleships were lost. And you can't keep fighting an attritional war with battleships. Yet, in WWII the order was put in for more and bigger battleships. Which led to his conclusion that ...

It went away because a carrier could strike at over 10 times the range of a battleship.

Hence, the title of the documentary. HE CLAIMED the writing on the wall was Jutland.

The factual problem with that is the actual losses at Jutland (from History Channel website about the Battle of Jutland):

The German navy lost 11 ships, including a battleship and a battle cruiser, and suffered 3,058 casualties; the British sustained heavier losses, with 14 ships sunk, including three battle cruisers, and 6,784 casualties. Ten more German ships had suffered heavy damage, however, and by June 2, 1916, only 10 ships that had been involved in the battle were ready to leave port again (Jellicoe, on the other hand, could have put 23 to sea).

So only one battleship total was lost in the battle, leading to the conclusion that Jonathan_S stated:

If anything Jutland reinforced that to stop a fleet of battleships you needed at least as large and capable fleet of your own battleships.

If you (and the narrator) are saying that the battleship went away because the aircraft carrier could strike further, then that is precisely an argument about air-power. The writing may have been put on the wall at Jutland, but it could not be read clearly until after the end of the next world war.

In WW2 it is clear that the Bismarck and the Yamato were mistakes; but battleships were quite useful for both the US and the British. The final tally of major ships lost by the US in WW2 is 2 battleships (both sunk at Pearl Harbor), 5 fleet carriers and 7 escort carriers.

cthia wrote:sigh

I don't recall saying anything about planes. Nor did the narrator. His point is that at Jutland many battleships were lost. And you can't keep fighting an attritional war with battleships. Yet, in WWII the order was put in for more and bigger battleships. Which led to his conclusion that ...

Jonathan_S wrote:And even after WWII the battleship didn't go away because it was vulnerable to aircraft. It was far less vulnerable than a carrier, cruiser, or any other warship. It went away because a carrier could strike at over 10 times the range of a battleship.

Hence, the title of the documentary. HE CLAIMED the writing on the wall was Jutland.

Um. Only one battleship was lost at Jutland - the old obsolescent German pre-dreadnaught Pommern.

That's 1 out of 44 battleships present -- hardly a damning failure of the concept.

Now the battlecruisers faired worse. 4 were lost, the British Indefatigable, Queen Mary, and Invincible and the German Lützow.
But that's still only 4 of 14 present. Hardly unsustainable losses.


Jutland was the last large scale clash of battleships - but nobody at the time thought it would be. They didn't even think it'd be the final large scale clash of battleships during WWI. And the 6 largest navies on the planet continued to build new battleships for decades after Jutland; so they didn't think it spelled the end for them either.

Now, post-war there were battleship building holidays which put mostly put a hold on construction for about 15 years. But that was due to a treaty system where all sides agreed to save money by (mostly) holding onto existing ships and delaying the next couple spirals of size, cost, and power growth.

So I think either the documentary was wrong, or misstated, or you misunderstood what it was saying. Because Jutland was not seen, either then or over the rest of the battleship era, as signaling the end of the battleship.

tlb wrote:
(SNIP! by RAW)

In WW2 it is clear that the Bismarck and the Yamato were mistakes; but battleships were quite useful for both the US and the British. The final tally of major ships lost by the US in WW2 is 2 battleships (both sunk at Pearl Harbor), 5 heavy carriers and 7 light carriers.

5 heavy carriers? I count only 4 ("CV-2 Lexington", "CV-5 Yorktown", "CV-7 Wasp", and "CV-8 Hornet"). As far as I know, no Essex class or Midway class carriers were sunk in WWII (though several Essex class carriers were badly damaged).

tlb wrote:In WW2 it is clear that the Bismarck and the Yamato were mistakes; but battleships were quite useful for both the US and the British. The final tally of major ships lost by the US in WW2 is 2 battleships (both sunk at Pearl Harbor), 5 heavy carriers and 7 light carriers.

Robert_A_Woodward wrote:5 heavy carriers? I count only 4 ("CV-2 Lexington", "CV-5 Yorktown", "CV-7 Wasp", and "CV-8 Hornet"). As far as I know, no Essex class or Midway class carriers were sunk in WWII (though several Essex class carriers were badly damaged).

Wikipedia grouped CV & CVL into what I labeled heavy carriers versus CVE (carrier escorts) into what I labeled light; which moves Princeton (CVL-23, a member of the Independence class that was sunk by a land-based aircraft bomb at the Battle of Leyte Gulf on 24 October 1944) into the heavy class, since it is not a carrier escort. I apologize if I caused confusion by including it with the others you mentioned. Perhaps I should have counted it with the escort carriers, since it is called a light carrier. Or perhaps I should used different names for the groups (like major and minor?).

Please let me know what you think.

Oops, correction. There were many warships lost.

"I don't recall saying anything about planes. Nor did the narrator. His point is that at Jutland many warships were lost. And you can't keep fighting an attritional war with battleships. Yet, in WWII the order was put in for more and bigger battleships. Which led to his conclusion."


Why do you keep attributing the analysis to me? I am only stating what the documentary says. Don't you think it is a bit presumptuous of you to challenge his analysis without digesting it? Especially since you say that I "misdigested" it. View the piece for yourself. Then tell me.

I neither agree nor disagree with the narrator. I am not a historian or military analyst. Although I respect those who are. Obviously the producers of the show are, or are affiliated with someone who is to make those remarks. Since they are making documentaries, my bet is on them.

He only said that the writing was on the wall at Jutland. Enormous expenditures of battleships was not going to be "the big stick." (No pun intended towards the Iowa).

Again, it is not my analysis. As I stated from the beginning. And since the age of the battleship did draw nigh with WWII... then obviously he is right.

cthia wrote:Oops, correction. There were many warships lost.

"I don't recall saying anything about planes. Nor did the narrator. His point is that at Jutland many warships were lost. And you can't keep fighting an attritional war with battleships. Yet, in WWII the order was put in for more and bigger battleships. Which led to his conclusion that ..."


Why do you keep attributing the analysis to me? I am only stating what the documentary says. Don't you think it is a bit presumptuous of you to challenge his analysis without digesting it? Especially since you say that I "misdigested" it. View the piece for yourself. Then tell me.

I neither agree nor disagree with the narrator. I am not a historian or military analyst. Although I respect those who are. Obviously the producers of the show are, or are affiliated with someone who is to make his remarks. Since they are making documentaries, my bet is on them.

Again, it is not my analysis. As I stated from the beginning. And since the age of the battleship did draw nigh with WWII... then obviously he is right.

Well you put this forward as being correct (as you say in the last sentence), so we can disagree with that. That is part of the reason I get annoyed with you; you say that you make no judgement in one sentence and then in the next say that you bet that they are right and finally that they are obviously correct. Then when I disagree (based on my knowledge of the Battle of Jutland), you certainly act as though these were your conclusions in your defense of them. So how are we to know what is yours, when you disavow that they are your conclusions and yet react to criticism as though they were you most precious thoughts?

It simply seems to me that if you insist on presenting and defending statements, then you should accept that people will treat them as if they were yours all along. Otherwise either do not present them or do not defend them by going further than a simple statement that you saw them and thought them interesting.

Then there are certain specifics of what you wrote, consider this passage:

cthia wrote:I don't recall saying anything about planes. Nor did the narrator. His point is that at Jutland many battleships were lost. And you can't keep fighting an attritional war with battleships. Yet, in WWII the order was put in for more and bigger battleships. Which led to his conclusion that ...

Jonathan_S wrote:And even after WWII the battleship didn't go away because it was vulnerable to aircraft. It was far less vulnerable than a carrier, cruiser, or any other warship. It went away because a carrier could strike at over 10 times the range of a battleship.

Hence, the title of the documentary. HE CLAIMED the writing on the wall was Jutland.

You start by saying neither you nor the narrator were saying anything about planes when asserting that the battleship was superseded by the carrier. But that is not a mistake that the narrator of a documentary entitled "Aircraft Carrier: Guardian of the Seas" should ever make, because the combat power of a carrier consists almost exclusively of the planes that it can put into the air. It is only because of the planes that a "carrier could strike at over 10 times the range of a battleship".

I have digested the analysis as you presented it and found it wrong compared to what I know of the Battle of Jutland and the subsequent disputes between the carrier supporters versus the battleship supporters. Clearly it is you that said "And since the age of the battleship did draw nigh with WWII... then obviously he is right". So clearly you are agreeing with the statement "the writing on the wall was Jutland". So clearly when I disagree with that, I am disagreeing with you (and possibly the writer who put those words into this documentary).

Once upon a time, I provided a transcript of one of David's interviews for non English speaking members. I thought I'd do it again, snipped textev, since I quite possibly might be misrepresenting the narrator, er producer. I am sure the narrator is innocent, he is simply a hired voice.

Warning. For all of you cry babies for whom this might concern, this might get wordy.

Transcript:

"By the beginning of the 20th Century, the giant guns of dreadnoughts, or battleships would dwarf the cannons of Trafalgar.

As the first World War began, Britain had a significant edge over Germany in both ships and guns, and did not expect to be challenged. But in June of 1916, 250 British and German ships engaged off the coast of Jutland in the North Sea.

(cannons blasting, explosions)

It would come to be known as the greatest battleship duel of all time. 14 British and 11 German warships were sunk. 8,500 young men were killed.

(explosions continue)

(ship creaking)

(men clamoring)

The age of the battleship had come to an end in less than two hours of fighting.

Like great weapons of the past, navies simply cannot afford to lose battles fought in earnest. Despite the horrendous losses suffered by the Germans and Britains at Jutland, battleships reappeared in the second World War. Much bigger and far more lethal.

Enchanted with the powerful symbolism of big guns, Adolf Hitler invested heavily in battleships, including the Turpitz and Bismarck.

The German ships were superbly built and manned. They were thought to be invincible, like the Nazis themselves.

RADIO ANNOUNCER (voice-over): The cruiser Norfolk sighted the Bismarck before her battle with the Hood. Followed the German ship like a bloodhound

NARRATOR: The Bismarck's rudder was damaged by light aircraft. The crippled ship was then pounded with 2,800 shells from British warships before being scuttled by the German crew. 2,100 German sailors died. As the age of the battleship was coming to a close, that of the aircraft carrier was just beginning.

NARRATOR: When submarines first appeared in the theater of war, British admirals considered them unethical, the weapons of cowards who refused to fight on the surface like real men.

The stealthy, high-tech German submarine was regarded to be the battleship of the future. In the early years of World War II, they had a lethal advantage in the North Atlantic...

Planes were instrumental in ending the era of the battleship, yes. But it was their delivery system, the aircraft carrier, that really sealed their fate. Planes are useless if they cannot get close enough to the enemy. And as I also stated in my original post that is responsible for this gnashing of teeth, that lesson was again learned by the British when they saw a horrendous number of their bombers gobbled up by German defenses before finally rethinking their strategy.

Apropos of nothing, compared to the number of ships involved the percentage of attrition at the Battle of Midway was worse than at the Battle of Jutland.

Jutland:
British: 151 ships involved, losing 14 for 6093 men killed
German: 99 ships involved, losing 11 for 2551 men killed
(this includes the loss of 5 torpedo boats)

Midway:
Japan: 27 ships involved with 248 combat aircraft,
losing 6 and all aircraft for 3057 men killed
USA: 26 ships involved with 233 combat aircraft,
losing 2 ships and 150 aircraft for 307 men killed

Of the four combatants the USA did the best, but the Japanese did the worst, so Jutland in total was better off than Midway in total. I do not know if the US figures include the aircraft that were based at Midway.

Note that the Japanese lost all the aircraft carriers, which automatically caused the loss of all carrier aircraft. Which supports the quote:

Like great weapons of the past, navies simply cannot afford to lose battles fought in earnest.

Jonathan_S wrote:And even after WWII the battleship didn't go away because it was vulnerable to aircraft. It was far less vulnerable than a carrier, cruiser, or any other warship. It went away because a carrier could strike at over 10 times the range of a battleship.

The battleship went away because it was a SDM against the MDM of the carrier aircraft. It doesn't matter that it's a lot tougher and hits far harder, if it can't close to engagement range it's worthless.