Re: Battleships...again......

"Dean A. Markley" <deanmarkley@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Andrew Robert Breen wrote:
In article <lJudnSQUxPkodE_anZ2dnUVZ_q-jnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Dean A. Markley <deanmarkley@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Andre Lieven wrote:
On Mar 8, 12:37 pm, "TMOliver" <tmoliverjr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Tiger" <Lana_sa...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote silly nonsense...

Even a stopped watch is right once in a while. Of course we alreAady had a
nuke surface force till the penny pinchers killed them. Same thing with
the Battleships. The Uss New Jersey should be at sea, not sitting in
Camden.
Somehow, I knew we would once again have a chance to see a statement like
that in bold vivid print demonstrating the pre-pubescent - no barely post
infantile - mindset of the poster......

{Marvellous stuff, TMO, and thanks for saving me from the temptation
to rant..}

You know, I was going to address this latest outbreak of BB Insanity,
but you did the job spot on.

I'd add to this that as much as I am fascinated with battleships
(and warships in general)they have ALWAYS been a complete waste of
resources better directed elsewhere. The only thing battleships
have ever accomplished was to cause immense naval arms races. I
challenge anyone to name a war where battleships proved their
worth.

Russia-Japan, 1904-05. The battleships were pretty decisive there.

I'd agree the battle of Tsushima itself was decisive. But the effect
on the actual war campaign was minor. Had the Russians not possessed
or sent those poor ships around the world, the war would have ended
the same way. Up to that point, battleships had proven themselves
extremely vulnerable to mines. And the Russian battleships were
completely ineffective at preventing the Japanese from moving troops
to Korea.

I think that given the balance of costs and benefits, at some point
the penny (literally and figuratively) had to drop as to what more
profitable means of waging war were.

The problem though, at that point, is that different people measure
"profit" rather differently, nor necessarily as calculate profit for
the same group, let alone the entire country in question. In other
words, vested interests and economic interests, contract issues,
conservatism, and the lack of education of the general public, helped
to keep the battleships being built and in service decades after their
in hind-sight finished peak.

Before the peak, there was I believe no better way to bring steel and
powder to bear on a naval adversary than by building big-gun
battleships.
--
Gernot Hassenpflug
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: sinking the supership
    ... They were battleships of the RN and were ... and attacked enemy units far from home port. ... The large units of the Italian Fleet offered little threat after Cape ... > But not until much later in the war. ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: Prince of Wales and Repulse: who was responsible?
    ... > Weren't the Prince of Wales and Repulse sunk after Pearl Harbor? ... > anyone send two battleships and a couple of destroyers out to battle the IJN ... Churchill sent them to the Far East as a symbol of British resolve ... were not at war when they were sent, ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: Battleships...again......
    ... WW1, if the RN battleships had lost Jutland, the Germans would have ... won the war, they did not so the allies won. ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: December 7th
    ... attack on Pearl by Japanese forces since the '20s. ... Secretary of the Navy were stuck in WWI mode, fixated on battleships. ... wasn't until Pearl Harbor that they realized the folly in their ways. ... Here's the next what-if debate on WWII: Could FDR have declared war on ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Battleships...again......
    ... WW1, if the RN battleships had lost Jutland, the Germans would have ... won the war, they did not so the allies won. ... facilities requires more imagination that I possess. ...
    (sci.military.naval)
Quantcast