[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/his/ - History & Humanities



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




Is there a bigger meme in naval warfare history than battlecruisers?
>>
The naval warfare is itself a meme.
>>
Battleships
>>
Many made valid if limited use of battlecruisers, with the notable exception of the bong navy, which made use of them as burial crypts.
>>
Battleships during the age of Carriers
>>
Ahem
>>
>>5941346
Those retarded aviation battleship
>>
Carriers in 21st century.
>>
Superbattleship (aka Yamato and friends) might be the biggest meme in naval history
>>
>>5941346
Shut the fuck up before I deck you one, fag
>>
>>5941611
>blows you up within 30 seconds
nothing personnel, anon
>>
>>5941346
Yamato and Musashi
>>
File: maxresdefault.jpg (73 KB, 1280x720)
73 KB
73 KB JPG
>>5941346
It's such a cool meme though.

>>5941538
For a second I thought you meant battleships IN SPACE, but I guess you were referring to battleships that had aircraft utility. This shit looks retarded.
>>
>>5941437
*laughs in German*
>>
>>5941636
yamato class ships are /aesthetic/ but sadly bluepilled
>>
Battlecruisers start making sense once you stop thinking about Jutland and think about the big picture.

If you could get 4 kph higher cruise and top speed on battleships sized ship, and you happen to be great britain, that's your capital ship that can reach whatever crisis area in the empire slightly faster(for Hong Kong we're talking days). Once battleships could reach ~30 knots, the need for a battlecruisers has ended as moving a ship of this size any faster than 30 knots isn't really viable(even today)
>>
>>5941797
Mahan proved you're wrong. The ONLY thing that matters is the big fight between two huge fleets. Commerce raiding is a stupid meme and you're stupid for thinking response time matters.
>>
>>5941843
Response time matters when you have to prevent crisis in the good old "fire few salvos into chinese coastal city" way.
>>
>>5941843
That's because Mahan didn't take into account torpedoes, submarines, mines and coastal defence into account. All of his shitty examples come from the age of wooden ships, hence why commerce raiders seem so garbage, unless you're going to conveniently ignore the damage German uboats did to merchant shipping during ww1 and how merchant shipping sunk exceeded the tonnage produced
>>
>>5941893
Yeah a brilliant example the commerce raiding country was literally starving while the blue water navy country didn’t and won the war. Looks like mahan fucked your argument.
>>
>>5941843
>Commerce raiding is a stupid meme
Didn't the UK starve out WW1 Germany pretty well, despite Jutland being a draw?
>>
>>5941930
Blockading =!= Commerce raiding.
>>
>>5941893
US submarines against Japan would be a better example of a country being almost completely cut off from imports. German U-boats sank a lot of tonnage but the sea power of Britain was simply too much to overcome with such a one-dimensional strategy.
>>
>>5941930
>Jutland being a draw
How does making sure that Germans stay jerking off in their ports for the rest of the war and even start a revolution when they're asked to sortie out again, a draw?
>>
>>5941948
Japanese Navy was crushed way before US Subs made an impact
>>
>>5941930
UK in ww1 is the exact opposite of a navy built for commerce raiding.
>>
>>5941843
Like the one that went down between USA and Japan?
>>
>>5941957
>In the Pacific, American submarines destroyed
or disabled over half of Japan's warship tonnage
Karl Lautenschlager, The Submarine in Naval Warfare, 1901-2001, p. 108
Fuck off, nigger.
>>
>>5941958
https://warandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/naval-strength-19141.jpg

# of cruisers/# of battleships (Battlecruisers will be counted as battleships for this)

>Britain 1.704/1
>Germany 1/1
>France 1.16/1
>Austria-Hungary 0.583/1
>Italy 2.3/1
>Russia 1.4/1
>OE 1/1
>Greece 1/1
>Japan 2.53/1
>USA1.03/1

As you can see, Britain's navy is far more geared towards commerce raiding than any of her adversaries during WW1. It was just huge so had more battleships and more cruisers and other light ships, but the focus was comparatively less on capital vessels. The only people who were even more cruiser focused than the Brits were the Italians and the Japanese.
>>
>>5941957
>Between the wars, the Japanese admirals planned strategy based on decisive battle, and tactics were developed accordingly. As a result of this emphasis, they ignored commerce protection almost completely in both building programs and fleet training.
>The most basic factor was Japan's vulnerability to commerce warfare. Over threequarters of the country's requirements for seventeen basic raw materials and significant percentages of other raw materials and foodstuffs came from overseas [...] U.S. submarines would conduct about 1,500 sorties against Japanese shipping, with the operational force in the theater never exceeding 156"fleet boats." They sank half of the merchant tonnage available to Japan during the war.
>U.S. submarines were able to operate deep in enemy waters from the first days of hostilities, even though Allied surface and land forces were losing engagements and being forced to retreat.
>>
>>5941948
You're right, my example of German uboat warfare isn't as good as the American one. I'd say it also had to do with the Germans believing their aggressive uboat strategy would discourage neutral countries from providing merchant shipping to the Allies, but the exact opposite happened. Japan on the other hand is a good example of being strangled through commerce raiding.
>>
>>5941918
>with massive American help the UK eventually managed to overcome the German uboat effort so that means commerce raiding doesn't work
:thinkin:
>>
>>5941918
>A fundamental cause of Germany's failure to establish a submarine blockade was the availability of neutral shipping for the [Entente] war effort
>having a trillion countries provide you with overwhelming numbers of Merchant shipping tonnage helps nullify the effectiveness of commerce raiding!!!!!
Who would've thought?
>>
>>5942066
Not him, but the U-boats didn't even manage to stop the acceleration of the British war economy. While they sank a lot of tonnage of merchant ships, they didn't get anywhere near enough for their operations to be called successful, with or without American aid.
>>
>>5941346
gunboat militias
>>
>>5942057
Even though the German U-boats may not have achieved an absolute victory by strangling Britian, there's still marginal utility. At least in WW2, the combined-arms approach the Allies took to clear the ocean of enemy submarines and keep the sea lanes open took up large amounts of resources, greatly disproportionate to the effort put into the U-boat war by the Germans. Sea denial can be far more cost effective than sea control.
>>
>>5942100
>While they sank a lot of tonnage of merchant ships, they didn't get anywhere near enough for their operations to be called successful,
Of course it's all speculation but by the time the US entered the war, the Germans were sinking ~one in four ships bound for Britain with minimal losses among their subs. According to the wiki Britain's supply of wheat had shrunk to six weeks worth at that time. So I think it's not too farfetched to say that without the US, German submarine warfare might've yielded the desired results
>>
>>5942144
Sea "denial" is cheaper and gets "results" but ultimately does not have a decisive impact on the war. Controlling maritime communications however has always won the war.
>>
>>5942158
If you're a land power like Germany focused on a large continental war then sea denial is the best you're going to get.
>>
>>5942163
Rome would've lost the 1st Punic War if they kept that attitude. Instead they built a fleet and became good at navy and won.
>>
>>5942172
This analogy would work if Germany's only adversary was the United Kingdom.
>>
>>5942158
Yeah, like the war of Third Coalition.
>>
File: 1521030526883.png (60 KB, 586x614)
60 KB
60 KB PNG
>>5942145
British food supplies never got dangerously low. Even in 1917 most categories of food had higher stocks than the start of the war and the average diet was more than ample.
>>
>>5942256
Where were they getting all the lard from all of a sudden?
>>
File: 1546207900669.gif (1.78 MB, 500x625)
1.78 MB
1.78 MB GIF
>>5941437
>British battlecruisers were destroyed by a force of German battlecruisers.
>This means that battlecruisers suck
No, it means that British battlecruisers suck. The German battlecruisers at Jutland did everything which was expected of them and more.
>>
Beatty was truly a retard though, and probably the biggest reason the bong battlecruisers get memed today. A competent commander would have made all the difference.
>>
>>5942284
My guess is that they prioritized imports of fats due to their high caloric density. Shipping space was always a scarce resource in the World Wars, and getting more calories per cubic meter is always ideal.
>>
File: Roma and Vittorio.jpg (157 KB, 1280x978)
157 KB
157 KB JPG
>>5941346
Big gun capital ships like battleships and battlecruisers in general were a meme. Altogether like 75-100 were built and you can count on just about two hands how many battles they actually sunk each other in. Their cost was hugely disproportionate to how effectively they were used.
>>
>>5942419
>Big gun capital ships like battleships and battlecruisers in general were a meme.
Only if you ignore the entirety of naval history from the 16th century onward and focus purely on the early 20th century. Big ships with big guns ruled the seas for literal centuries.
>>
>>5942419
Sounds exactly like modern nukes, which is what battleships were equivalent to on the worldwide stage pre-WW2.
>>
>>5942463
Battleships weren't intended as a deterrent. Germany and Japan built battleships with the full intention of using them in battle. There was a whole doctrine based around this idea.
>>
>>5942501
Having a large fleet in itself was the deterrent my dude. "We have more battleships" in 1920 is equivalent to "We have more ICBMs" in 1970.
>>
>>5942515
No it wasn't because the goal of building battleships was to use them, and Britain actually did use its battleships to cut Germany's fleet down to size in WWI.
>>
>>5942501
>Battleships weren't intended as a deterrent
Every weapon system on the planet is intended to be a deterrent. The only exception would be weapon systems that are 100% secret and not publicized in any way, and even then, foreign governments probably know about them via spying.
>>
>>5942534
Yes, I didn't disagree with you about them being much more practical to actually use. However at the same time, a nations fleet was also its method of projecting power and displaying its capabilities. Nations incapable of matching the size of another fleet were inherently on the back foot, as they would be incapable of engaging that fleet in open battle. This forced them to either: A. Not go to war, or B. Try to find a way to equalize the playing field.

Furthermore, fleet building in the run up to WWI and the early part of the inter-war period were akin to the arms races that took place later in the century. They were incredibly expensive, pushed the boundaries of various technologies, and in the end resulted in arms limitation treaties (in the form of the Washington Naval Treaty and the two London Naval Treaties). These fixed tonnage ratios to prevent another war from starting (and to some extent: to prevent the United States from simply outbuilding the entire world by 1930), and helped maintain the status quo between the various powers, rather than the never-ending escalation which had been rearing its head again by 1920. Much like SALT would do 40 years later.
>>
I know they're completely obsolete but goddamn do I love big ships with big guns
>>
>>5942020
>the Japanese as a culture are entirely encapable of thinking outside the box
More news at 4
>>
>>5942436
Not really. The Americans took over as the premier world power by the turn of the 20th century, and they hadn't really bothered with a significant navy by that point.

Economics always rules. Geography helps.
>>
>>5942800
>The Americans took over as the premier world power by the turn of the 20th century
Teddy Roosevelt would very strongly agree with this statement.

>they hadn't really bothered with a significant navy by that point.
Teddy Roosevelt would very strongly disagree with this statement.
>>
>>5942923
No, I don't think Teddy the scumbag would disagree with the status of the USN before the turn of the century. He was clamoring for that, but they hadn't really put their attention to it. Probably not until 1910 or so before they began to engage in that pursuit, and seriously build out.
>>
>>5943000
>America didn't have a navy until 1910
This is wrong. Even as early as 1797, America already possessed warships far superior to their British equivalents.
>>
>>5943016
Well yes, they had a navy, but no real mass. They didn't believe they needed it, and history shows they really didn't.
>>
>>5943033
Considering that they already had enough ships to blockade the entire south in 1861, you're still wrong.
>>
>>5943045
No, the South had no warships, and some warships will outmatch no warships.

You're really not very knowledgeable on this, lad.
>>
>>5943053
Whether the south has ships or not, you still need a very large navy to blockade such a large coastline, otherwise ships will just come and go as they please.
>>
>>5943453
No, you don't, and they didn't.
>>
>>5943462
So the South just decided to be a good sport and not export their cotton? No warships were required to stop them? Awful nice of them to cooperate.
>>
>>5943016
So why were they defeated by the British in 1815?
>>
>>5943507
>So why were they defeated by the British in 1815?
When did this occur?
>>
>>5941437
kek
>>
>>5941346
dreadnoughts
>>
>>5941893
>That's because Mahan didn't take into account torpedoes, submarines, mines and coastal defence into account.
Mahan published his first book in 1890 and his second in 1892.
>>
>>5943545
He died just before the submarine proved its worth as a commerce raider.
>>
>>5941346

No, the meme is the RN.
>>
>>5941843
Holy fuck what an awful post
>>
File: 1344177706902.png (142 KB, 2688x2688)
142 KB
142 KB PNG
>>5942341
"A shittier battleship" is still just that.
>>
>>5943491
The South had no warsips, lad.

A weak naval power overwhelmed them because that's what happens in such cases.

It's like your ignorance. It's not going to stand up.
>>
>>5944567
>this
>>
>>5942419
They were a massive deterrent, who ever had the most battleships ruled the seas, it never mattered if they were used in battles or not.
>>
>>5945214
The bongs built a fuckton of them, and now they're huddled up waiting for a blade to their necks.

How'd that work out?
>>
File: HuhHuhHuhHa.png (3.99 MB, 1334x750)
3.99 MB
3.99 MB PNG
>>5943016
>>5942800
>American education
>>
>>5945261
t. Reginald the Duke of Servant Buggery and Twitzborough IVI
>>
>>5945134
>The South had no warsips
I never said once that they had warships.

>A weak naval power overwhelmed them
They weren't "overwhelmed" they were blockaded, and it takes a large number of ships to even contemplate a blockade of such a vast amount of coastline as existed in the Confederacy.
>>
>>5941843
Hi Mahan
>>
>>5945425
You're a confirmed dolt, now shoo.
>>
>>5944625
A battlecruiser is not a "shittier battleship." It fills a different niche in the fleet. They use their speed to scout ahead for the main battle line, while at the same time using their large-bore guns to eliminate enemy reconnaissance units whenever possible. They aren't meant to engage the enemy's main battle line, at least not directly.
>>
To the person saying the US had no navy until like 1910.

Are you mentally retarded?
>>
>>5945437
It sure was nice of the Confederacy to stop exporting cotton voluntarily. I mean, it was their most important source of income, and losing that income did kinda screw them over, but thankfully, they were kind enough to voluntarily stop export without being forced to do so. It's not like a blockade was involved, and it's not like a blockade requires a large number of vessels to pull off. Anybody can do it.
>>
>>5945456
>Anybody can do it.
Correct, anybody with a few rowboats can defeat a navy with no rowboats.
>>
>>5945443
>*****Beatty in command*****
>****everything explodes*****
>>
>>5945498
The confederacy had 3,500 miles of coastline. Can't cover that with rowboats.
>>
>>5945518
Can and did.

You can do that when the other guy doesn't have rowboats.

You should probably stop now, lad.
>>
>>5945512
Beatty really did screw the pooch. Castles of Steel has a great rundown of all the mistakes he made. And honestly, all of that would have been forgivable except that he spent the rest of his life smearing Jellicoe's name for his own benefit. What a jackass.
>>
File: blockade.jpg (86 KB, 788x432)
86 KB
86 KB JPG
>>5945524
These don't look like rowboats to me.
>>
>>5945527
no, you clearly don't understand, there was something wrong with those bloody ships that day!

and those were just minor map corrections he made in the official archives, totally innocuous, surprised you'd even notice them
>>
File: 1546288526263.jpg (13 KB, 280x373)
13 KB
13 KB JPG
>>5941843
>>
>>5945548
They look like rowboats anchored next to a rowboat-less enemy's marine installation.
>>
>>5941437
quite the contrary the british were the only ones to use battlecruisers properly in their intended role.

it just wasnt at jutland, it was at the battle of the falklands.

>>5942003
>>5941958
its probably worth noting at this point that the cruiser strength of the RN was intended for commerce protection against hostile cruisers rather than raiding enemy shipping, the large and far flung merchant marine of the UK prior to ww1 required such a fleet.

and british doctrine regarding enemy commerce during the war was blockade not raid, raiding is done from a position of weakness, it means sending small forces and single ships out into the wide oceans to pick off unescorted merchants and hopefully avoid enemy ships, the british policy of blockade was to cut off access to a enemies ports with superior forces and essentially invite them to try their luck breaking the blockade https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_sgoa4_Rqk&t=703s
>>
>>5943016
>This is wrong. Even as early as 1797, America already possessed warships far superior to their British equivalents.
no.

presumably you are referring to the 4 heavy frigates of the very early USN, the problem with that argument is that they didnt actually have a british equivalent, they were not classical european style frigates, the class being heavier and better armed but were no match for a ship if the line. Their 'superiority' was short lived however, by the end of 1815 the RN had begun deploying significant numbers of Razees to north american waters
and those vessels were more than capable of handling a US heavy frigate in action.

between then and around the early 1920s it is very hard to argue for the US possessing superior warships largely because the RN continued to be the primary naval innovator in that period, having constructed turreted vessels before the USN and having larger and more advanced ocean going ironclads including the first practical ocean going turreted vessels.

this pattern continued during throughout the late 19th centuries culminating in the construction of HMS dreadnought the first modern battleship and then the worlds first fast battleships with the queen elizabeth class.
>>
>>5946622
>the british were the only ones to use battlecruisers properly in their intended role.
So their intended role was to explode?
>>
>>5946622
>british doctrine regarding enemy commerce during the war was blockade
the doctrine was never engaged, obviously
>>
>>5947703
you did read the next part right?

the proper use of battlecruisers was to hunt down and eliminate commerce raiding cruisers as at the falklands where 2 british battlecruisers hammered the german cruisers and destroyed von spees raiding squadron.

that battle was a textbook example of battlecruisers using their superior speed and firepower to hunt cruisers.

in a fleet action they were meant to be used as scouts, and to outmanuver and cut off the retreat of the enemy fleet.

>>5947720
the british blockade of world war 1 was massively devastating to the germans, and forced the germans to try and force a battle against the grand fleet to break the blockade
>>
>>5947737
>the proper use of battlecruisers
Again, it appears from the preponderance of their use the bongs used them to incinerate and entomb sailors.

Ah yes, the "distant blockade", meaning no blockade.

The krauts traded along those shores as they wished, and it was foreign alliance that precluded commerce elsewhere, not the "distant blockade".
>>
>>5949707
>Ah yes, the "distant blockade", meaning no blockade.
WW1 Germany would have been very surprised to learn that their problem was fictional.
>>
>>5949724
WWI and WWII Germany would have been very surprised to learn that their problems had anything to do with bong naval incompetence.
>>
>>5951011
you mean the wars where the RN contained the vast majority of the german surface fleet for the majority of the war won almost all the major surface actions, and managed to keep all the shipping lanes open despite the best the german submarine fleets could do while also crippling germanys maritime supply capabilities
>>
>>5951984
No, I mean the wars where bong naval incompetence exposed itself, despite the sucking in of massive resources from elsewhere to confront a 3rd rate naval power that STILL managed to blunt them, until a great power was forced to step in and break the stalemate.
>>
>>5952009
your going to have to be more specific because thats not a remotely accurate description of any of the wars discussed thus far in the thread.
>>
File: 7b2.jpg (104 KB, 640x640)
104 KB
104 KB JPG
>>5941437
>>
>>5952022
Yes, it is.
>>
>>5952157
no it really isnt.

for starters in the first world war the RN only had any significant help from any allied navy after it had already beaten the germans at jutland, and that help boiled down to a handful of battleships joining the grand fleet and then never actually fighting anything because the germans didnt dare engage the grand fleet again following the hammering their line had taken in the brief 5 minutes it had engaged the grand fleet for before running, no significant aid was recieved in terms of convoy escorts etc and the Uboat campaign decisively failed to significantly effect the british ability to supply themselves.

nor were the germans accurately described as a third rate naval power, they were not as mighty as the RN perhaps but outside of the RN the only other fleet as large was the USN but both the RN and USN had far greater commitments alongside their strength while the germans could concentrate on a single task.

as for the second world war the british managed to control the med and the atlantic and weather the much improved new version of the U boat menace successfully, it managed to beat both the RM and KM at sea neutering both surface fleets effectively.

now admittedly the sheer number of convoys to be covered required some additional units to be constructed and deployed by its allies but the technologies employed were developed by the british and the majority of the units deployed both surface and aircraft were also british although canada did make a serious contribution in terms of escort vessels.
>>
>>5952299
Yes, it really is.
>>
>>5952317
seriously you need a better argument.

that was schoolyard level there

>nah nah 'i know you are but what am I'

do better or go away, or have the intellectual honestly to admit you are wrong but pick one please.
>>
>>5952326
no, you
>>
File: NavalClasses.png (52 KB, 899x201)
52 KB
52 KB PNG
>>5941346
From a thread a while ago, this gives a good overview imo, but I'm a bit of a brainlet on this stuff so it could be wrong.
>>
>>5953541
eh it works for ww2 after carrier aviation became a thing. But the thread is meant to be about battlecruisers and they were a thing before carriers, and werent really constructed post ww1 a few ships already laid down were completed but as far as I can recall no new build ones were started.

for ww1 its a little more like

submarines were for sinking enemy commerce and ambushing enemy capital ships.

destroyers were for hunting submarines, launching torpedo attacks on other surface ships, scouting and fighting other destroyers and protecting their own battleships from destroyers.


cruisers were for scouting, hunting enemy commerce and screening the fleet in battle.

battleships were there to kill everything that floated.

battlecruisers were battleship sized and armed but cruiser armored and were for hunting down enemy cruisers, scouting ahead in major fleet actions and flanking movements in major battles.


the bits about AAA arent relevant to the paradigm when battlecruisers were constructed and battleships and large naval rifles were the main killers in theory



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.