Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Oceanliner Designs"
channel.
-
19
-
8
-
7
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
@atheistyoda8915 " Irrelevant. Battleships don't have nearly the same striking range as the aircraft on a carrier."
oh, but they do. Cruise missiles, anti-ship missiles, etc. They were going to put hundreds fo vertical launch cells on the Iowas, giving it anti-space capabilities even.
"They're nothing more than a slow moving, big target that can't even strike targets from afar. "
same for the big carriers with aircraft that can't outrange anti-ship missiles that ships like the Iowa could carry. Even the Island airbases in the Pacific are at risk in a war with China, so the US is figuring out how to fight China without using carriers at all. But the USN is still building surface warships to fight China, while pulling out the carriers.
Name one valid way a battleship is obsolete. If Battleships are obsolete, then so too are Destroyers, Cruisers, Frigates, etc. And carriers are bigger, weaker, more vulnerable targets.
3
-
@moonlightsparkle2690 but Battleships were never obsolete in WW2, nor after WW2, nor today. Nobody except the anti-battleship crowd claims battleships were unsinkable. That's not what makes a battleship useful.
A battleship can control the seas, and remain on station, especially with supporting assets like destroyers. Something no aircraft carrier can do.
the carriers ALWAYS hang back in the rear Behind the battleship fleets to make their strikes and run away. they never hold ground, they only conduct sneak attacks and fall back to replenish aircraft.
And as you point out, it only takes one decent hit to take a carrier out of the fight. don't have to sink it, just eliminate it's ability to either launch or land aircraft (if you can't land them, anything you launch is lost. If you can't launch, then once they land the aircraft are useless.).
Anyone who studies WW2 USN tactics and strategy seriously can see the USN knew how to use battleships properly, and did for the entirety of WW2, and into the modern age.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnshepherd9676 "Kurita's force was the main force, not the Northern force which was just the bait to draw Halsey away. "
when did I claim the Northern force was the main force? learn to read.
The US wanted to destroy ALL of the IJN, not just part of it. decoy or not. And Halsey was convinced by his carrier pilot's reports that the center force had been soundly defeated and retreating. So in a way it was the carrier's fault, by failing to defeat Kurita's force and falsely reporting more success than was achieved, that the battleships were taken north.
"He destroyed the Northern Force without the battleships."
No, he did not. he sunk a few ships, that is all, the rest of the force escaped. "His cruisers finished off the light carrier Chiyoda at around 17:00, and at 20:59 his ships sank the destroyer Hatsuzuki after a very stubborn fight."
he only managed to sink 2 more ships after the air attacks and the rest of northern force escaped.
The Northern force consisted of:
1 CV (Zuikaku (S))
3 CVL (Zuiho (S), Chitose (S), Chiyoda (S))
2 BB (Ise*, Hyuga*)
3 CL (Isuzu, Tama (S), Oyoda)
8 DD (Hatsuzuki (S), Akitsuki (S), Wakatsuki, Shimotsuki, Maki, Sugi, Kuwa, Kiri)
Of these, Zuikaku, Chitose, Zuiho, Chiyoda, Akizuki, and Hatsuzuki were sunk. All the battleships, most of the cruisers, and most of the destroyers survived.
1
-
@johnshepherd9676 "Well mate, if you acknowledge that Kurita's force was the main force then you just blew a lit lot of electrons on a faulty argument."
your faulty argument?
"Halsey's focus should have been on Kurita, at least to extent of leaving Lee behind. That is all I got for today, go away now."
Typical, state unsubstantiated opinions, then runaway. and demand silence from your opposition and try to silence them from responding. Typical loser response.
Kurita feigned retreat, and it worked. Why would they chase down a task force that was out of range, and believed to be heading back to Brunei? There was a northern force of carriers to go after still, and the US successfully dealt with all three forces, even though Halsey went north. And after Halsey sunk part of the northern force, the IJN never fought a naval engagement ever again in WW2 (Yamato's suicide run doesn't count as they were never able to go offensive and engage or threaten a single US Navy warship).
Halsey wanted the knockout blow, and so did Nimitz and others. And they succeeded. Nimitz's message to Halsely was sent in error, the part, "The world wonders" was never part of the message Nimitz sent. And should have never resulted in the battleships being turned around to fight in a battle Halsey already knew was over, but felt he had to turn them around to save his job (but nimitz had never meant to imply halsey's job was at risk). But Halsey should have continued, and used the battleships to sink the northern force in its entirety as planned.
1
-
1
-
@mkaustralia7136 "I was worried that if all the CVs went north leaving Lee’s BBs behind, they might be attacked by IJA air power when they had no air cover "
Such a strawman argument. go reread ALL of WW2 in the Pacific history.
1) the Taffy's had Plenty of fighters to provide air cover.
2) the air cover promised Center Force never really materialized. Japan air power at this point was basically nonexistant.
3) US battleships have DEVESTATING AAA firepower. Go look at Santa Cruz. The Japanese themselves in their books admit that the AAA was so devastating that when the battle of Santa Cruz ended, only 7 operational IJN aircraft remained in the fleet. US battleships proved they could both defend themselves and another ship simultaneously against air attack.
4) Never in WW2 did a Japanese air strike sink or seriously threaten a US battleship after Dec 8, 1941. Look what it took for US aircraft to sink the Contemporary Japanese battleships to the North Carolinas, South Dakotas, and Iowas......it took the US HUNDREDS of airplanes over many hours to sink the newest japanese battleships. Japan had no hope in hell of sustaining anything remotely like that against TF34.
5) US airpower from the Taffy carriers against center force during the battle of Samar contributed no real damage to the IJN warships. Only Japan's own fears gave them any effect, and that effect was merely slowing down the ships by convincing them to dodge fake attacks.
"course changes to avoid dive bombers and kamikazes rather messes with your firing solutions. "
This does not apply to US Battleships with radar controlled AAA. it affected IJN firing solutions against other SHIPS. but US battleships used radar control in TF34, as was used to decimate IJN southern force. Japanese aircraft would not have thrown off TF34 AAA nor main guns as they are radar and computer controlled and can compensate for the movement of the ship.
Name one case of Japanese kamikazes throwing off the aim of a US battleship in WW2?
"The IJA still had considerable air assets on Luzon. "
Even the IJN commanders had no faith in those assets even before teh battle of Leyte kicked off. Kurita already had doubts they would show up, while enroute to the battle.
"TG 81.3 was raiding airfields to try to suppress them and played little role in Sibuyan Sea as a result. "
And achieved literally nothing, as IJN fleets were decimated just the same.
"The forces to the south of the landing beaches seem to have had less interference from IJA aircraft."
same as the center and northern forces. no real impact from japanese aircraft. Go look what happened to ALL of the IJN Northern Force aircraft. nearly all were shot down with no effect, and the few survivors had to limp to luzon.
I have a small list of naval channels. I recommend books more so. research the actual documents, actual orders given by Nimitz, etc. find more in depth detailed resources. go read Japanese accounts and records too.
1
-
1
-
@emmgeevideo "Regarding Guadalcanal, carriers were in pretty short supply in the second half of 1942 and Nimitz and Halsey were loath to risk the remaining carriers. "
So were battleships. But you're ignoring WHY carriers failed to win guadalcanal. short answer, they never could. But it only took 2 battleships one night to win Guadalcanal.
" To say that battleships were demoted to a secondary role is not to say that they weren't useful or powerful. "
Except they WEREN'T demoted to a secondary role until after the Battle of Leyte in which the IJN was effectively destroyed and never threatened the USN ever again. By that time the war had already been won, and the carrier battles were over. And even then, batleships remained in service of the nations who still had them, into the 1960s and 1990s, and fought in multiple wars after WW2.
"Starting in the late 30s, the carrier and naval aviation became the mainstay."
not really. the Destroyers and cruisers, performing the battleship's role, continue to do the bulk of the work for the USN to this day. The Carriers just hang around in the rear waiting to do sneak attack strikes and then run away, while the surface warships stay and take the brunt of the attacks and maintain sea control.
" It is simply a fact that for centuries the battleship and its predecessors were the mainstay of battle fleets. "
and still were until the 1990s and would be again if any remained in active service. Everyone acted differently when a battleship sailed into the Persian gulf, compared to a destroyer or carrier. Ground forces even surrendered to battleships in 1991. When have ground forces ever surrendered to a carrier before?
1
-
@emmgeevideo Yes, as his video shows, the Burke is not a battleship, it has firepower, but lacks the armor. But it performs the battleship role in the modern day none the less.
" It was a battle of attrition and the Japanese got the best of the US Navy for months. "
battles of attrition are what carriers are for. But you cannot control the seas with attrition carriers. You need battleships to control teh sea lanes. Carriers can only provide support and sneak attacks.
"The battleships you are so fond of were not deployed until the last battle, "
and Yamamoto surrendered Gaudalcanal teh very next day. the MOMENT the US battleships showed up and started controlling the seas, the IJN retreated. had they arrived sooner, Japan would have retreated sooner.
"The narrow waters of "The Slot" made it difficult for the typical battleship to do it's preferred mode of action."
correct, yet they still managed to do their job regardless.
"I'm reading Stille's excellent account of the battle of Leyte Gulf now. Once again, the carriers formed the nucleus of the TF 3. Halsey's orders from Nimitz were to go after the IJN and destroy it. Air power was the key."
wrong. you misunderstand deeply. in a naval battle, first you must knock out the enemy carriers, then proceed with teh surface engagement. Nimitz ordered Halsey to take out the IJN carriers, and that's exactly what Halsey did. and Halsey correctly used his battleships until they were incorrectly called away.
Air power contributed little. Air power knocked out defenseless IJN carriers, sunk a few ships, but was unable to turn back the Center force on either of the two days. Air power played no part in destroying the southern force at night, and air power failed to sink teh bulk of the northern force. Surface warships did the vast majority of the work against all three IJN task forces.
"I'm sticking to the fact that old-fashioned "decisive battle" fleet actions based on big guns became obsolete. Air power and submarines were far more effective in crushing the IJN than big 16" guns blazing away."
yet Halsey, Nimitz, Lee, Spruance, and others spent ALL of WW2 seeking that decisive battle. They spent ALL of WW2 using battleships as battleships are meant to be used, independent of the carriers. only AFTER Leyte, after the IJN was effectively destroyed in decisive battle, did the battleships get tasked with escorting carriers to defend against kamikaze attacks.
But the problem with decisive battle, is that ir requires a willing participant, and no competent Navy, including Japan, was going to willingly allow that to happen. But decisive battle is not the primary purpose of the battleship either. it is the goal, but not its mission. You need to read MUCH more on the specific orders given by US navy admirals in WW2, and how battleships were used, what their specific orders were. the theory of operations for a battleship, a nd much more. You need to look at things OBJECTIVELY and see the bigger picture.
Submarines were rather ineffective overall. the US, Japan, UK and others all understood the limitations of submarines in winning wars. The Germans did not. Submarines are the tools of defensive warfare, and have never won a war. The IJN merchant fleet was still surprisingly large when japan surrendered. German U-boats in WW2 failed to sink more total tonnage of ships than the UK alone produced in WW2. US submarines sunk a lot of tonnage, but not nearly enough, and spent much of the late war doing scouting and pilot recovery and laying mines. The US submarine campaign failed to stop any of the IJN Center, Northern, or Southern forces at Leyte. Submarines cannot control the seas nor win battles, nor stop battle fleets.
1