Battleships being sucessfull in and post WW2

[Post]

Battleships wernt obsolete at the start of WW2. The aircraft couldnt carry deadly enough weapons to kill them easily.
This changed as aircraft and weapons developed, and by 1943 and guided bombs the writng was on the wall.
The estimate was 15" of cemented armour to stop a heavy guided bomb or missile, and god knows what would have been needed to stop a Grand Slam!

However it wasnt an instant process - Bismark, for example was sunk by gunfire. North Cape was a battleship action, because at the time aircraft couldnt fly or bomb in bad weather.
By 1945, however, the fate of the BB was clear and while BB's were retained mainly as task force command ships, no new ones would be built. Increaing the size wouldnt help, and better AA just make them more difficult targets, but still targets.

The Bismarck was mission killed by aircraft. Without them she would have made it to Brest. The RN could just as well have hung outside her firing range and send more aircraft to her, putting torpedos into her. She might have even been sunk sooner, but the BB-boys wanted revenge for the Hood.

 

[Belisarius II]

If the VT fuse had been in widespread use and down to the 3 inch size then the vulnerability of Battleships would be far reduced. This is your only option.

Respectfully the only problem with your idea is the causality of having such advanced AAA defenses. Would you have such strong defenses if surface ships hadn't been so beat up by aircraft? Not even the USN was able to supply itself with enough VT fused shells in WWII. I think they only had about 1/3 VT fused shells in their ammo loads. The Americans had the most effective DP guns, and fire control systems, but needed British radar tech to make it all work together. Even USN BBs needed to be covered by large formations of carrier-based fighters. After the war jets are just too fast for even the best WWII tech to deal with. For that you need SAMs, and fleet interceptor jets, and if your surface fleet didn't get smashed up by aircraft how would you know you needed all that?

 

[Cockroach]

Once (almost) all-weather capable aircraft; reliable stand-off guided weapons and relatively light (aka you don't need a heavy bomber) nukes become available (thus a flight of fighter/strike aircraft have a good prospect of deep sixing a BB) plus nuclear subs become mature (all mid-1950s to early-1960s) the Battleship is thoroughly dead beyond surviving hulls living out their days as glorified monitors

Prior to that there's still space for BBs... with aircraft unable to operate in adverse conditions; guided weapons mostly limited to MCLOS (see also, unreliable) and to sink a BB with dumb bombs demanded multiple squadrons of aircraft, you still have a need for ships capable of surface action. IOTL for most of that roughly 10 year period, well, the US, France and UK operated modern Battleships (with the Frogs and Poms doing so in rather boutique numbers...) while the Soviets had some 1910s vintage scrap metal...

So, given a pre/early-WW2 POD it'd be possible to delay the development of nukes by 5-10 years (Otto Frisch and Rudolf Peierls make a boo-boo in their calculations, thus the Allies are in similar boat to the Axis and think a fission bomb requires tons of Uranium, thus isn't a practical objective?) and have either a Europe-only or Asia-only conflict (thus either German & Italian or Japanese BBs still in play) and it'd seem likely new BB construction continues into the early to mid 1950s...

 

[Belisarius II]

Respectfully, I'd disagree on that specification. The peculiar role of the aircraft carrier as a substitute for land based airpower was a phenomenon confined to the Pacific War. Elsewhere, there was less need for single engined attack planes when 2-4 engined heavier ones operating from land bases could do the job. As Astrodragon suggests, the advent of the guided bomb and heavy bomb in late 1943 puts the armour requirement for a battleship into the astronomical territory - the 96,000t Lion designs and the 106,500t Montanas. Prior to that, we saw Force Z attacked and sunk by 85 land based bombers, but it took until Musashi in October 1944 before carrier aircraft sunk a battleship at sea; the AA armament and ammunition situation for POW and Repulse in the SCS was suboptimal.

By the end of 1944, I would argue that not only the Pacific War was as good as won, but also the war at sea and the entire Second World War was as good as won. This wasn't the moment that killed off the battleship, which was already on life support. I would argue that the figurative 'Colonel Mustard in the library with the candlestick' was not October 1944, nor December 1941, although the latter would be set up as the seeming culprit in any good episode of Father Brown or Miss Marple and delivered a gut punch that sent Brother Battleship staggering about the place. Rather, the real death blow came with the guided bomb of mid 1943, which obviated the role of heavy armour before the atom bomb jumped up and down on its still warm corpse like a cheerfully homicidal 8 year old boy on an anthill. Aircraft killed off the role of the big gun as a means of offence, terminally dooming the 'all big gun battleship' epoch, but removing its defensive role as well did for it well and truly. Carriers don't enter into it.

The carrier based argument seems, in one respect, to be very much a Pacific War-centric/American-centric argument and interpretation of the broader Second World War, albeit an eminently understandable one and the same conclusion that others reach, if but by a more winding and scenic road.

If you want your fleet to operate outside the range of land-based fighter coverage you need carriers to be with you. Operation Torch was covered by carriers. Bismarck was crippled by Fleet Air Arm torpedo bombers. When the Allies faced glider bombs off Italy in 1943 the fleet was covered by fighters from CVEs. The RN's carriers gave them a big edge over the Italian fleet and delivered a devastating blow at Taranto which they never recovered form. RN carriers attacked Tirpitz in Norwegian ports. CVEs made a major contribution to the Allied victory in the Battle of the Atlantic. Carriers may not have been as obviously important in the European War in WWII as in the Pacific, but their presence still tilted the balance of power in the Allied favor.

 

[Monk78]

A high torpedo/ missile capacity SSGN/SSN could be the postwar battleship. It does fulfill most of the traditional roles performed by them.

 

[Gudestein]

The Bismarck was mission killed by aircraft. Without them she would have made it to Brest. The RN could just as well have hung outside her firing range and send more aircraft to her, putting torpedos into her. She might have even been sunk sooner, but the BB-boys wanted revenge for the Hood.

Thats not entirely correct. Bismarck was mission killed by PoW. Without PoW Bismarck wouldnt be heading for Brest but in the mid Atlantic hunting fir convoys.

 

[FairlyUninformedGraduate]

Heavily armoured missile platforms with substantial amounts of AA, to act as area control ships capable of hitting air land and sea targets with missile strikes, whilst also having the tools to deal damage to air based offensive units? Would need ASW escorts of course.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

If you want your fleet to operate outside the range of land-based fighter coverage you need carriers to be with you. Operation Torch was covered by carriers. Bismarck was crippled by Fleet Air Arm torpedo bombers. When the Allies faced glider bombs off Italy in 1943 the fleet was covered by fighters from CVEs. The RN's carriers gave them a big edge over the Italian fleet and delivered a devastating blow at Taranto which they never recovered from. RN carriers attacked Tirpitz in Norwegian ports. CVEs made a major contribution to the Allied victory in the Battle of the Atlantic. Carriers may not have been as obviously important in the European War in WWII as in the Pacific, but their presence still tilted the balance of power in the Allied favor.

The post you quoted here was in response to the contention that delay in the development of “specifically carrier based aircraft” would “prolong the functionality of battleships in war”.

At no point did I contend that carriers were not a significant part of the overall combination that resulted in Allied naval victory in the Atlantic/European/Mediterranean TOs, but rather that the guided bomb as part of general aircraft lethality was the fatal wound to the battleship. Insofar as I mentioned carrier based attack aircraft, it was in their specific role as anti-battleship weapons, not as fighter cover (Torch and Italy) nor ASW (CVEs in NorthLant). The Swordfish hit on Bismarck was an assist with an asterisk, as I mentioned in the post directly before the one you quoted, whilst Taranto is a separate case, being a port strike against immobile ships/targets. I’d go so far as to say the RN carrier strikes against Tirpitz aren’t the best argument in favour of the vital role of carriers, but one minor quibble does not a disagreement make.

As such, I agree with all your examples and your conclusion.

 

[Migrant_Coconut]

Guided bombs do require some degree of air superiority (to prevent interception of the bomber), precision and luck - it’s only when the AShM comes along that you have a guaranteed BB killer.

 

[Belisarius II]

Thats not entirely correct. Bismarck was mission killed by PoW. Without PoW Bismarck wouldnt be heading for Brest but in the mid Atlantic hunting fir convoys.

Prince of Wales damaged some fuel tanks on Bismarck cutting short her voyage, but she was still fully combat effective, and she would've survived. The torpedo hit left her unable to escape, or effectively defend herself. In fact, if Bismarck had topped off her fuel tanks in Norway, she wouldn't have had to head to France early, or she could've increased to full speed to get to France.

 

[Aslangeo]

Quote from DK Brown, British naval architect, in his book “Nelson to Vanguard” on British warship design

” the battleship was not made obsolete by the aircraft carrier because it was more vulnerable to damage , it was not, but because it was less capable than an aircraft carrier at doing damage to the enemy”

 

[Veiovis]

A high torpedo/ missile capacity SSGN/SSN could be the postwar battleship. It does fulfill most of the traditional roles performed by them.

The core role of a Battleship is mounting stronger (not just more!) weapons then smaller platforms could, while providing at least some defense against said stronger weapons.

This core role just doesn't exist anymore in the missile age. The largest plausibly useful missile can be bolted on small ships, there is no useful armor defence against them, and having more missiles on the same platform is outright detrimental in a enviroment that rewards distributed lethality.

All those missile battleships proposals profoundly miss the point. The BB existed because you needed big ships for big weapons, and once big weapons disappered, so did they.

 

[Crowbar Six]

The Bismarck was mission killed by aircraft. Without them she would have made it to Brest. The RN could just as well have hung outside her firing range and send more aircraft to her, putting torpedos into her. She might have even been sunk sooner, but the BB-boys wanted revenge for the Hood.

The Home fleet was also short on fuel so they couldn't hang around, also they were worried the Germans might be able to concentrate U boats against them or on their likely routes home.

 

[jlckansas]

The CGN Long Beach was in in its original form designed to carry Polaris missiles as part of its load out with it having basically the same kind of tubes the subs had. You don't need a BB for that just hull space.

 

[Blue cat]

The core role of a Battleship is mounting stronger (not just more!) weapons then smaller platforms could, while providing at least some defense against said stronger weapons.

This core role just doesn't exist anymore in the missile age. The largest plausibly useful missile can be bolted on small ships, there is no useful armor defence against them, and having more missiles on the same platform is outright detrimental in a enviroment that rewards distributed lethality.

All those missile battleships proposals profoundly miss the point. The BB existed because you needed big ships for big weapons, and once big weapons disappered, so did they.

Yep..

IMHO the Battle ship concept made a certain amount of sense when the primary means of defeating armoured warships involved firing heavy un guided shells at them from low trajectory heavy guns.

IMHO it was just within the relm of the plausible to build Battleships with armour schemes that could plausibly resist shell fire from low trajectory guns firing un guided projectiles that could plausibly be mounted in large enough numbers on plausible warships to plausibly achieve hits at reasonable ranges.

IMHO Battleships had also lost the race against the increasing effectiveness of Torpedoes in WW2 vs plausible torpedo defence schemes, before guided aerial bombs emerged that could defeat most if not all plausible deck armour schemes.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Heavily armoured missile platforms with substantial amounts of AA, to act as area control ships capable of hitting air land and sea targets with missile strikes, whilst also having the tools to deal damage to air based offensive units? Would need ASW escorts of course.

IIRC some of the arsenal ship proposals from the 90s suggested that they be numbered as battleships despite their role and armament differing dramatically from that of the historic battleship. Fair enough really, it's not like the Ticos do anything that a Victorian era admiral would recognize as "cruising".

 

[Parmenion]

Maybe have shore bombardment be seen as less niche and more needed, say in a far bloodier pacific war like in my TL. That might make them be seen as a major player in any war involving a coastline.

 

[Belisarius II]

The CGN Long Beach was in in its original form designed to carry Polaris missiles as part of its load out with it having basically the same kind of tubes the subs had. You don't need a BB for that just hull space.

Yes, your right you don't need a BB for that, any large hull would do. The missile ship idea was dropped because a SSBN could patrol undetected in firing range of a potential enemy country. A surface ship is easier to detect, and track. Missile ships would need escorts, including aircraft carriers to provide them aircover. An SSBN operates alone so it's a much more cost-effective system for a sea based nuclear deterrent. An SSBN operates for months at a time allowing a few boats to give you constant coverage of potential targets, while surface taskforces only provide spotty coverage. An SSBN just has a surface missile ship beat 50 ways till Sunday.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

What would a "battleship" optimized for WWII (by which I mean one best equipped to conduct shore bombardment and provide AAA for a task force) look like?

 

[FairlyUninformedGraduate]

IIRC some of the arsenal ship proposals from the 90s suggested that they be numbered as battleships despite their role and armament differing dramatically from that of the historic battleship. Fair enough really, it's not like the Ticos do anything that a Victorian era admiral would recognize as "cruising".

Indeed; if we consider the definition of a BB to be "Am big, am strong, me kill things good but not with airy planes" then a missile ship with AA and tough armour gits the bill.