SPOILER SEASON IS OVER FOR TEiF!!!

tlb wrote:Both the Soviets and the USA have experimented with liquid metal cooled reactors to permit higher temperatures. The USS Seawolf had its liquid sodium cooled reactor replaced with a pressurized water unit for standardization.

Fair point. I'd overlooked those, and sodium has a high enough vaporization point (1156K = 1621°F) that you should be able to get 800-1000°F superheated steam out of a heat exchanger fed by liquid sodium. And I believe that's the temperature ranges the USN's WWI and post-war 600 and 1200 PSI steam plants operated at.

I'm not sure if any of the experimental liquid sodium reactors did target that high a steam temp/pressure generation. But presumably you could do so if desired.

Just an opinion but up until the more recent families of ship launched or air launched missiles, the "old" battle ships did represent a significant gun platform or "weapons system". Which is why in places up through more than Viet Nam they continued to be "gunships".

On the other hand, more (though lighter and less resilient-instead of tougher and able to absorb a lot of damage and keep on mission) naval units give you more coverage for more places for the same time. So you have tomahawk and vertical launched systems and dedicated anti-ship and or anti-air weapons and extend your reach for defense out further than the old gun systems.

You try to build the best systems to meet the needs you believe you are going to face. The question of if it meets what you are actually going to come up again or need is another matter and my crystal ball is very cloudy.

Brigade XO wrote:Just an opinion but up until the more recent families of ship launched or air launched missiles, the "old" battle ships did represent a significant gun platform or "weapons system". Which is why in places up through more than Viet Nam they continued to be "gunships".

On the other hand, more (though lighter and less resilient-instead of tougher and able to absorb a lot of damage and keep on mission) naval units give you more coverage for more places for the same time. So you have tomahawk and vertical launched systems and dedicated anti-ship and or anti-air weapons and extend your reach for defense out further than the old gun systems.

You try to build the best systems to meet the needs you believe you are going to face. The question of if it meets what you are actually going to come up again or need is another matter and my crystal ball is very cloudy.

Another problem is that the very guns that are the battleship's unique weapon cause problems for modern self-defense systems and even radar.

There's a reason that Tomahawk's were put in armored box launchers on the Iowas -- and it wasn't because they were making them survivable against bomb, missile, or shell fragments. They needed that much protective steel to keep the blast of the 16" guns from damaging the stored missiles. And they never did get a modern AA self-defense capability -- they had to have an AA escort stuck fairly close to protect them from the possibility of air attack or heavy anti-ship missiles. (Which is an issue if they're coming in close enough to shore that they might be taking counterbattery fire from coast defense guns or field artillery. The BB can take those hits, but it's escort can't. But disable the escort and now the BB is far more vulnerable to air or missile strikes.

And of course as 1950s or earlier designs the legacy battleships didn't have spots for modern radars and missiles.

But even if you did decide you wanted a heavy gun bombardment vessel it might be tricky to give it even self-defense SAMs while protecting them from the vibration and overpressure of its own guns. (Not to mention still hopefully being functional after taking some shell fire of its own).


Now something armored like a legacy battleship is going to shrug off most of today's guns or anti-ship missiles. (Though quite vulnerable to smart armor piercing bombs or under keel torpedoes) But it's a lot cheaper and faster to design and make a BB killing anti-ship missile than it is to make a BB. So if anybody started making new BBs others would be incentivized to build weapons to counter them.

I can just remember how the British navy had a problem post WW2, with their then state of the art guided missile destroyers.
When deployed to South East Asia during the Malaysian troubles they had to decide if it was worthwhile using a $1 million missile to stop a $10k junk, as they had no significant guns. A hasty retrofit of 5 inch guns was done.

tlb wrote: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.

sigh

Irrelevant! You still don't get it. I got it, and I am neither a historian nor an analyst.

The fact that Midway - or any other later battle - highlights the producer's point further or better is besides the point.

And! If the producer claims that he could see the writing on the wall bespeaking the end of the battleship as far back as Jutland, then that just might mean that he is a very good analyst. Maybe even better than you.

Obviously, he didn't need Midway or any other far more recent battle to see the writing on the wall. Of course, you are free to call him on his "precognizance" all you want.

The main thing that I took away from it is that having a predominance of battleships was no longer going to be the deciding factor.

At that point, the narrator did not make any recommendations as to why the battleship had gone the way of the dinosaur; but only that it had gone the way of the dinosaur. Later he went on to substantiate his claim as to why he thinks it did, but the why was not the point that he was trying to highlight at Jutland.

****** *

Since you were kind enough to let me know why you get annoyed with me, let me return the favor. One good turn deserves another.

tlb wrote:

cthia wrote: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?

What I put forth as being correct is that I did NOT misrepresent what was being said.

I did not react to the criticism, per se. Why should I? Neither the documentary nor the included analyses are my own.

I reacted to the insouciant, the rude and the displaced manner of your criticism. Specifically, your rude and disrespectful "Do you somehow think that word count is as important as facts?"

That is what is called drawing first blood. I no longer suffer fools on this forum. Something I have had to do since joining. When those snide remarks bring the worst out of me, people complain, but they never accept responsibility. My time on this forum is as limited and important as anyone else's. I detest having to spend it raising other people's kids.

You further incite my wrath by stating that I must have misunderstood what the documentary was saying. And on and on. Condescension? Perhaps I cannot understand a documentary?

So, tell me, how did I fare in understanding what the narrator was saying?

"He couldn't possibly make those statements," 'eh?

But no apology from you. Instead, you launch into the Battle of Midway. Which is totally irrelevant. The producer had already stated what Midway helped stamp.

You annoy me, because first, "You do not read my posts. But you comment on them. That is disrespectful, rude, and stupid! I understand that my posts can get winded and as a result require more time to digest. If you don't have the time or inclination to digest them, then don't. But you shouldn't comment on them unless you do.

Not too long ago you blew me away when you indicated that you were of an advanced age even older than the author. Yet, you have always acted as if you are quite young. (I am still gobsmacked about your age.)

tlb wrote: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.

Why? That doesn't make any sense. Again, your age, wisdom, and or logic. Why treat them as if they are mine when I tell you they are not, even when I supply the source. A free source! Disagree with them all you want, yes! But why try to pin my ears back as if you have some long-standing vendetta against me? Even if I agree with what the piece is saying! After all, I digested the entire thing.

Although it is foolish of you to disagree with a piece you haven't actually seen, it is your right to do so. With the piece. Statements like, 'I disagree with the piece' is acceptable. Being condescending to the messenger is not. There is a difference. I will not suffer a fool who acts as if he doesn't know where that line is.

At any rate, no apology. I suppose you are getting as tired of apologizing to me as I am of hearing it. I would much prefer you act your age and discontinue wasting both of our time.

tlb wrote: Otherwise either do not present them

That is a bit too rich, rude, and arrogant even for your blood don't you think?

tlb wrote:do not defend them by going further than a simple statement that you saw them and thought them interesting.

Read my posts! That is exactly what I did! Nearly everything I wrote came out of the documentary. Especially the part about the era of the battleship ending in just two hours of fighting. Since I didn't include it in quotation marks, you thought it was mine. I accepted that lack of quotation marks and allowed you that transgression. "Take it up with the producer," I said.

tlb wrote:Then there are certain specifics of what you wrote...

[Snip]


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).

Which brings me to another problem I have with YOU! You have a problem staying in the lane. You have a habit of forgetting the title of the thread. There is nothing wrong with deviations and detours, but the title of the thread should be respected. Duckk can close a thread if it forgets its original intent. I have always tried to maintain the integrity of the thread.

But it also happens with conversations. My entire post was in response to kzt's post which is essentially about not seeing or heeding the writing on the wall.

My entire point is that I absorbed in a documentary that the end of the battleship was coming and had not been heeded. Your incessant rant with me and the author of the documentary is irrelevant to the conversation I was responding to at that point unless you think the producer is wrong about the end of an era.

kzt wrote:Even the best and brightest of your military, having seen in person what is coming, are unable to accept that 'this means YOU!' and institute the kind of changes that are obviously going to be needed when the next war starts.

Instead they miss the forest for trees or the organization groupthink overcomes the obvious lessons.

Things like, 'Wow, we'll shoot a lot of artillery and small arms ammo, what's our industrial base to keep everyone supplied?'

Things like, 'Those machineguns and barbed wire are going to be a huge issue. What kind of small unit tactics could we use instead of advancing with a battalion on line?'

Things like, 'With all this artillery being fired, isn't this going to tear up the ground? How are we going to supply advancing units? How can we keep control of them?'

Things like, 'Those machineguns sure are lethal. How do we get more of those to our infantry? How can we make them light enough that they can be used by our infantry when they are attacking?'

BTW, oftentimes my posts get winded because oftentimes when I give the benefit of the doubt that people can make simple connections, people like you prove me wrong. So I tend to try and prevent misunderstandings by including a lot of information. Sometimes apropos. Sometimes simply FYI.

But just once I would like to see you act your advanced age.

If you want to re-litigate this discussion, then let's go back to the beginning where you stated the following:

cthia wrote:This is an interesting discussion. It reminds me of several documentaries which spells out the fact that no navy wanted to accept what the battle of Jutland detailed. The age of the battleship had come to an end in less than two hours of fighting. But more and more were built, and they were built bigger. The Bismarck sits on the bottom of the sea.

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. What the Battle of Jutland mainly demonstrated was that the battle cruiser was never intended to fight a battleship, a situation made worse by the British commander's sloppiness about ammunition safety (driven by a push to increase rate of fire).

However there were some ominous signs elsewhere in WW1 about the value of aircraft versus ships. The first effective use of a torpedo dropped from an airplane occurred on Aug. 12, 1915, when a British Short Type 184 seaplane sank a Turkish vessel in the Dardanelles. Other navies’ torpedo planes also had some success during World War I.

The biggest problem with the battleship in WW2 was that it tied up enormous resources (in one sinkable package) that a resource poor country could have better used for planes or submarines. The poster child for this waste is not the Bismarck, but the Yamato. In those countries these ships were intended as much for prestige and ego, as for any purely military result.

As I tried to pint out: the Battle of Jutland did not, and could not, by itself signal the end of the age of battleships. The battleship lost preeminence when the aircraft carrier gained equal value (which was not until sometime in the Second World War). But you continued:

cthia wrote:You are going to have to argue that point with the producers of the documentary. Well, it is actually a docuseries. That line came from the documentary word for word. I should have included it in quotation marks. The docuseries is Aircraft Carrier: Guardian of the Seas.

It is available for free on Tubi. Along with so many more very good documentaries about war. A very short list:

- Aircraft Carrier: Guardian of the Seas (It also includes a very detailed explanation of the internal steam powered launch system that catapults the planes off the deck. Along with very detailed cutouts. Very nice.)

- The American Dreadnought
- Technology of War: Sea Power
- The Cold War: Submarines in Enemy Depth
- Legends of Air Combat: Jets of War 1950-2013
- U455: The Mystery of the Lost Submarine
- Lost Bombs: The True Story of America's Broken Arrows

12 of them? I am a good friend of a family whose father had to eject out of the bomber responsible for the Broken Arrow over Goldsboro, NC.

- Greyhounds of the Sea
- History Retold: Fire at Sea
- The Life and Death of the USS Hornet CV-8
- Battle 360: The USS Enterprise
- Jet Bombers: Blackburn Buccaneer (First Episode)
- Grey Wolves: The Terrifying Advent of the U-boat (Intense footage and narration)

And many many more. I found them by accident. A friend asked me to install Tubi because Battlestar Gallactica is featured on it. I had never watched Battlestar Galactica. So many of you on the forum recommended it too.

There are so many more titles about tanks, guns, etc. Too many to list.

And movies as well like Final Countdown.

tlb wrote:Most of what you state here is irrelevant to the battle of Jutland. There were several aircraft at the battle, but only in a scouting role; hardly the sort of thing to make any battleship obsolete.

"Aircraft Carrier: Guardian of the Seas" is a film crew on the USS Ronald Reagan, hardly a documentary about World War 1. An off hand remark in a puff piece about US nuclear aircraft carriers is hardly historical proof of anything. It is possible that the remark was trying to convey the following; from Wikipedia:

Jutland was the last major battle in world history fought primarily by battleships. In terms of total ships displaced, it was the largest surface naval battle in history.

"Final Countdown" is about jet plane carrier thrown back to fight at Pearl Harbor, again not relevant.

"History Retold: Fire at Sea" is about fires at sea.

Do you somehow think that word count is as important as facts?

cthia wrote:You are in the mood to waste more of my time, I see. You admitted to not reading my posts. It seems you are continuing the trend.

It also appears that you haven't even seen the documentary. It is billed as a documentary. It is listed as a documentary. And it plays as a documentary, with a narrator throughout the entire piece. So, I am very certain that you are commenting on something that you have NOT even digested. The fact that the documentary uses a modern aircraft carrier to make its points IS irrelevant.

But now you are arguing against the producers of the documentary, and the website for including said piece in their documentary section. Regardless of the fact that the piece itself says... documentary!

Gees! How often does your wild hair grow?

Word count? Please dude. Get a grip. You ever heard of FYI?

Final Countdown is a movie. Yes. One of my favorites. If you bother to read my post you will see where I indicated that the site also has, movies.

tlb wrote:I have read about and watched documentaries specifically about the Battle of Jutland. Here is a nice documentary on Youtube, that is entertaining and not too long, about the Battle of Jutland (it is part of a series from the 100th anniversary of the Great War, that followed events week by week):
The Battle of Jutland - The Great War week 97

Yes, the one you mention is a documentary: but about a US nuclear carrier's responsibilities and capabilities, not about World War 1. I expect what you heard is a variation of the following statement of fact from Wikipedia:

Jutland was the last major battle in world history fought primarily by battleships. In terms of total ships displaced, it was the largest surface naval battle in history.

I am not arguing against the documentary, I am saying that what you drew from it is wrong. Just read the Wikipedia article on the Battle of Jutland and you will see that although there was a seaplane carrier in the fleet, that airplanes played almost no part in the fight. The planes were there for scouting and nothing more. So it is not possible to use the Battle of Jutland to prove that the age of the battleships had ended.

It is instead possible to look back and view the Battle of Jutland as a turning point, the last major battle fought where the power of the battleship was unchallenged. It is not surprising that a documentary on the modern aircraft carrier would point this out.

At this point it is clear that we are arguing at cross purposes: I am stating that the facts of the Battle of Jutland could not lead any contemporary observer to conclude that the age of the battleship was over, that would require the air power which a carrier could project be a threat to a battleship. You are only arguing that you accurately represented the words in the documentary.

You claim that I have not "digested" your point, I think that is also true of you. My point was that the statement you presented did not match the facts of Jutland, as I knew them based on reading many books about both world wars and watching documentaries on the Battle of Jutland itself. If you had attempted to understand what I consistently stated, this argument might have proceeded differently.

I completely disagree that I am arguing against the producers, not you. In the past you have tried to present yourself as just the messenger, but it is a message that you have specifically picked to support a point that you wish to make. Further you are claiming here that it must be true because it appears in a "documentary". I am not asking the producers to acknowledge a mistake, only for you to do do.

And another person joined in:

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.

And your reply to the two of us was:

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.

This is an interesting point, because at the Battle of Jutland aircraft carriers could not strike at "over 10 times the range of a battleship", that was not evident until WW2; the only aircraft carrier at the battle (for seaplanes) was there to provide scouting, not combat. Plus the loss of ships was rather mild compared to the number of ships present, so the battle says nothing about the problem with attrition.

And so it continues:

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.

tlb wrote: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).

And finally we get something of a transcript:

cthia wrote::idea:

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.

Although the losses can be called "horrendous", they were low compared to other battles. The key statement that I take from this is the following:"Like great weapons of the past, navies simply cannot afford to lose battles fought in earnest".

Consider the Battle of Tsushima fought prior to WWI, where the Japanese fleet destroyed the Russian fleet. This is what Wikipedia says in summary:

It was fought on 27–28 May 1905 (14–15 May in the Julian calendar then in use in Russia) in the Tsushima Strait located between Korea and southern Japan. In this battle the Japanese fleet under Admiral Tōgō Heihachirō destroyed the Russian fleet, under Admiral Zinovy Rozhestvensky, which had traveled over 18,000 nautical miles (33,000 km) to reach the Far East. In London in 1906, Sir George Sydenham Clarke wrote, "The battle of Tsu-shima is by far the greatest and the most important naval event since Trafalgar"; decades later, historian Edmund Morris agreed with this judgment. The destruction of the fleet caused a bitter reaction from the Russian public, which induced a peace treaty in September 1905 without any further battles.

Prior to the Russo-Japanese War, countries constructed their battleships with mixed batteries of mainly 6-inch (152 mm), 8-inch (203 mm), 10-inch (254 mm) and 12-inch (305 mm) guns, with the intent that these battleships fight on the battle line in a close-quarter, decisive fleet action. The Battle of Tsushima conclusively demonstrated that battleship speed and big guns with longer ranges were more advantageous in naval battles than mixed batteries of different sizes.

The Japanese fleet had 5 battleships, 23 cruisers and 20 destroyers; while the Russian fleet had 8 battleships, 3 coastal battleships, 9 cruisers and 9 destroyers. The Japanese suffered 117 dead, 583 injured and a total of 450 tons sunk; while the Russians suffered 5045 dead, 803 injured, 6016 captured, 6 battleships sunk, 1 coastal battleship sunk, 2 battleships captured, 2 coastal battleships captured 1 destroyer captured and a total of 126,792 tons sunk.

I attempted to make the same point with the Battle of Midway: when compared to the number of ships involved; the Battle of Jutland only showed minor losses, because it was not fought to a conclusion. The losers in Midway and Tsushima lost battles that they could not afford.

This is what Wikipedia says about fleet sizes at the end of WW2 for the US and Great Britain:

At its peak, the U.S. Navy was operating 6,768 ships on V-J Day in August 1945, including 28 aircraft carriers, 23 battleships, 71 escort carriers, 72 cruisers, over 232 submarines, 377 destroyers, and thousands of amphibious, supply and auxiliary ships.

At the end the RN had 16 battleships, 52 carriers—though most of these were small escort or merchant carriers—62 cruisers, 257 destroyers, 131 submarines and 9,000 other ships.

Note that the US in particular had almost as many battleships as fleet carriers at the end of the war. The battleship was never supplanted as the supreme gun platform, a role the US found very useful when sending troops onto a hostile shore.

PS: Yes, the transcript does have the narrator saying "The age of the battleship had come to an end in less than two hours of fighting." as you claimed it did. However that is a point only evident in hindsight, which I tried to point out by saying that what probably was meant was the following: "It is instead possible to look back and view the Battle of Jutland as a turning point, the last major battle fought where the power of the battleship was unchallenged". Further it did not mean that the battleship was no longer useful; aircraft carriers in WW2 generally did not conduct combat operations at night or during bad weather, something that a battleship could do. Consider the case of the British losing an aircraft carrier to a cruiser in bad weather when trying to stop the invasion of Norway.

cthia wrote:If the producer claims that he could see the writing on the wall bespeaking the end of the battleship as far back as Jutland, then that just might mean that he is a very good analyst. Maybe even better than you.

Obviously, he didn't need Midway or any other far more recent battle to see the writing on the wall. Of course, you are free to call him on his "precognizance" all you want.

The main thing that I took away from it is that having a predominance of battleships was no longer going to be the deciding factor.

At that point, the narrator did not make any recommendations as to why the battleship had gone the way of the dinosaur; but only that it had gone the way of the dinosaur. Later he went on to substantiate his claim as to why he thinks it did, but the why was not the point that he was trying to highlight at Jutland.

Personally I ascribe that less to "precognizance" and more to an overapplication of hindsight. After all the producer, or the script writers, are focused on telling the story of a modern nuclear powered aircraft carrier. The briefest overview of history is merely prolog for their focus; and it would be unexpected for them to do deep research or dig into the nuance of a peripheral interest that they only address in passing.

Yes, Jutland was the largest confrontation of armored steel battleships. But it was not clear to anyone at the time that it was the highpoint of that type. That's far more clear in hindsight from after the end of the battleships era. (And a producer or script writers for a modern documentary can't help but be influenced by that hindsight)


(FWIW I count 22 times post-ironclad battleships and battlecruisers faced off. 7 of those before Jutland and the other 14 afterwards -- though Jutland was by far the largest, over 4x more such capital ships than the next largest. Still with the majority of battleship/cruiser face offs occurring after Jutland I think the producer is being overly glib passing that battle off as the "era of the battleship ending in just two hours of fighting.")

Oh, and in case folks are interested here at the battleship / battlecruiser confrontations I could come up with. [Listed in descending order of # of such capital units combined]

58 - Battle of Jutland (1916) - 28 British BB + 9 BC, 16 German BB + 5 BC
13 - Battle of Tsushima (1905) - 5 Russian, 8 Japanese
11 - Battle of the Yellow Sea (1904) - 5 Japanese BB, 6 Russian BB
8 - Battle of Dogger Bank (1915) - 5 British BC, 3 German BC
8 - Battle of the Gulf of Riga (1915) - 1 Russian BB, 4 German BB + 3 German BC
8 - Battle of Surigao Strait (1944) - 6 US BB, 2 Japanese BB
7 - Attack on Mers-el-Kébir (1940) - 2 British BB + 1 BC, 4 French BB
6 - Battle of Cape Sarych (1914) - 5 Russian BB, 1 Ottoman (ex-German) BC
5 - Second Battle of Heligoland Bight (1917) - 3 British BC, 2 German BB
5 - Battle of Calabria (1940) - 3 British BB, 2 Italian BB
4 - Battle of Cape Spartivento (1940) - 1 British BB + 1 BC, 2 Italian BB
4 - Operation Berlin (1941) - 2 British BB, 2 German BB
4 - Battle of Cape Matapan (1941) - 3 British BB, 1 Italian BB
3 - May 9 1915 (1915) - 2 Russian BB, 1 Ottoman (ex-German) BC
3 - Battle of Dakar (1940) - 2 British BB, 1 French BB (uncompleted)
3 - Operation Weserübung (1940) - 1 British BC, 2 German BB
3 - Battle of the Denmark Strait (1941) - 1 British BB + 1 BC, 1 German BB
3 - Sinking of the Bismarck (1941) - 2 Brithsh BB, 1 German BB
3 - Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal (1942) - 2 US BB, 1 Japanese BB
2 - January 5 1916 (1916) - 1 Russian BB, 1 Ottoman (ex-German) BC
2 - Operation Torch (1942) - 1 US BB, 1 French BB (uncompleted)
2 - Battle of the North Cape (1943) - 1 British BB, 1 German BB


Note: I omitted battles where only one side had BB/BCs.

Note 2: I also choose not to count coastal BBs as BBs, nor did I count ironclad BBs as BBs. (Even though there were a couple battles where pre-dreadnaughts did face off against ironclad BBs)

Note 3: However I did count the British "large light cruisers" as battlecruisers.

Note 4: I omitted any operations where the two groups of ships never found each other; but did count ones where BB/BCs immediately fled upon sighting opposing BB/BCs.

Jonathan_S wrote:

cthia wrote:If the producer claims that he could see the writing on the wall bespeaking the end of the battleship as far back as Jutland, then that just might mean that he is a very good analyst. Maybe even better than you.

Obviously, he didn't need Midway or any other far more recent battle to see the writing on the wall. Of course, you are free to call him on his "precognizance" all you want.

The main thing that I took away from it is that having a predominance of battleships was no longer going to be the deciding factor.

At that point, the narrator did not make any recommendations as to why the battleship had gone the way of the dinosaur; but only that it had gone the way of the dinosaur. Later he went on to substantiate his claim as to why he thinks it did, but the why was not the point that he was trying to highlight at Jutland.

Personally I ascribe that less to "precognizance" and more to an overapplication of hindsight. After all the producer, or the script writers, are focused on telling the story of a modern nuclear powered aircraft carrier. The briefest overview of history is merely prolog for their focus; and it would be unexpected for them to do deep research or dig into the nuance of a peripheral interest that they only address in passing.

Yes, Jutland was the largest confrontation of armored steel battleships. But it was not clear to anyone at the time that it was the highpoint of that type. That's far more clear in hindsight from after the end of the battleships era. (And a producer or script writers for a modern documentary can't help but be influenced by that hindsight)


(FWIW I count 22 times post-ironclad battleships and battlecruisers faced off. 7 of those before Jutland and the other 14 afterwards -- though Jutland was by far the largest, over 4x more such capital ships than the next largest. Still with the majority of battleship/cruiser face offs occurring after Jutland I think the producer is being overly glib passing that battle off as the "era of the battleship ending in just two hours of fighting.")

"Precognizance" was a result of my irritation and was meant to be facetious. I have two family members who are close to dying of Covid complications, and tlb's nonsense came at the wrong time.

Yes, I agree the "narrator" was exercising a fair bit of hindsight. And I think that is how he intended it. Everything must be taken in context. With his opening statement that "Britain had a huge advantage in warships than Germany and did not expect to be challenged," set the stage of his analysis, AFAIAC.

Yet, Britain was challenged. In spite of the battleship and huge advantage in ships. I think that is the only claim the producer was making. At that point.

At any rate, I don't have the time to belabor it any longer. And I give up the ghost. I had to "re-litigate" it, now, because I was busy with family stuff then. And the snide remark was uncalled for, at a time when my patience was thin.

And the snide remarks continue...

"Here we get something of a transcript?"

The transcript provided is word for word. I only left out parts that were unrelated. Like the full discussion and explanation of how the steam powered, nuclear backed jet-fighter propulsion system that launches planes off the deck works. I also left out the discussions of the stealth fighters, etc. And the discussion of the submarine. Without viewing the piece, I get accused of, what, supplying an incomplete transcript?

Anyway, yes, perhaps the fault is my own for continuing to be sucked into his silly arguments. Mostly because he fails to read posts.

Addendum: I also left out the very detailed and very interesting discussion about RIMPAC. RIMPAC is what is going on with the aircraft carrier which is the lead unit on that exercise.

cthia wrote:I have two family members who are close to dying of Covid complications, and tlb's nonsense came at the wrong time.

I am sorry to hear about your family's suffering with COVID-19. My best friend lost his sister at the end of August. She had received the vaccine, but was immune-compromised because of cancer. Although my family has been safe so far, I can try to imagine what you are going through based on my friend's struggle. It is a sad reminder that there are more important things than squabbles on the internet.