USS Iowa comes back to life for its final voyage

[SaSi]

I love the looks of the Iowa class ships. But they were outdated even before they were launched. Pearl Harbor showed that the future was with the carriers. And the fact that the Pacific fleet carriers survived that attack was a deciding factor in the pacific war.

But even then, it's nice that a part of history is still alive. Along with Enterprise, the Apollo capsule and SR-71.

 

[Bigerik]

I love the looks of the Iowa class ships. But they were outdated even before they were launched. Pearl Harbor showed that the future was with the carriers. And the fact that the Pacific fleet carriers survived that attack was a deciding factor in the pacific war.

/QUOTE]

Actually, Taranto was the One that might have shown that battleships were obsolete. But there were many battleship actions during the war. Aircraft and radar were not advanced enough until the end of the war to really make battleships obsolete. The British and the French even completed battleships after the war.

 

[JohnVF]

I think the decisive rolls that battleships of any kind played in WWII were few and far between. Tirpitz was best used as she was, a decoy/threat-in-being to tie up resources, effectively removing them from other areas. Bismarck was a colossal waste of material and manpower. The Japanese sorely needed to go back in time and make more carriers in place of the Yamatos. The Italian battleships achieved nothing. The French battleships achieved nothing. The British battleships achieved little in return for the manpower and resources they consumed. The far east fleet lasted 3 days. The Mediterranean fleet did a little better with Hood and Warspite achieving a little success against the surrendered French fleet and the Italians respectively.

I'm torn because I love battleships as 'things', but as weapons they were particularly useless in comparison to the wealth, material, and manpower they consumed. Just look at the material wasted by the Germans on the High Seas Fleet in the first world war, not to mention that the existence of that fleet at all was partially responsible for Britain feeling paranoid enough to join in the fight against them. I'd even suggest that without the High Seas Fleet, Britain would have not been eager at all to defend the continent. Much of the animosity between the two nations was built upon the potential threat to naval supremacy, when I feel that the Kaiser really just wanted toys like his cousin had. Seems the rulers of empires are not all that different from men and their big speakers. You need big ships or you're not manly rulers. Despite whether its the best tool for the job.

Hitler would have been better off building more submarines or investing in a more competent strategic bomber force. Or building more and better tanks than were being built at the time of the Bismarck and Tirpitz' construction. The greatest victory I can think of for US battleships was in the Philippine Sea when they put up a wall of 5" anti-aircraft shells with deadly effect, as much due to shell technology and centralized gunnery control and the VT fuze, as to what the guns were mounted on, to decimate the air wing of the Imperial Japanese Navy for the last time. But carriers played a bigger part in that battle, and what did the 16" guns do?

As bombardment machines, cheaper, slower, less manpower intensive ships could have gotten the job done. The large ships were steadier gun platforms but it still seems that however long the battleships spent shelling a place, that there was still stiff resistance when boots hit the shore. I think the presumed affect of shelling was overrated in almost every invasion. Iwo Jima was not a big island and they shelled the hell out of it, but the caves were so extensive that much of the defenses survived.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

I think the decisive rolls that battleships of any kind played in WWII were few and far between. Tirpitz was best used as she was, a decoy/threat-in-being to tie up resources, effectively removing them from other areas. Bismarck was a colossal waste of material and manpower. The Japanese sorely needed to go back in time and make more carriers in place of the Yamatos. The Italian battleships achieved nothing. The French battleships achieved nothing. The British battleships achieved little in return for the manpower and resources they consumed. The far east fleet lasted 3 days. The Mediterranean fleet did a little better with Hood and Warspite achieving a little success against the surrendered French fleet and the Italians respectively.

I'm torn because I love battleships as 'things', but as weapons they were particularly useless in comparison to the wealth, material, and manpower they consumed. Just look at the material wasted by the Germans on the High Seas Fleet in the first world war, not to mention that the existence of that fleet at all was partially responsible for Britain feeling paranoid enough to join in the fight against them. I'd even suggest that without the High Seas Fleet, Britain would have not been eager at all to defend the continent. Much of the animosity between the two nations was built upon the potential threat to naval supremacy, when I feel that the Kaiser really just wanted toys like his cousin had. Seems the rulers of empires are not all that different from men and their big speakers. You need big ships or you're not manly rulers. Despite whether its the best tool for the job.

Hitler would have been better off building more submarines or investing in a more competent strategic bomber force. Or building more and better tanks than were being built at the time of the Bismarck and Tirpitz' construction. The greatest victory I can think of for US battleships was in the Philippine Sea when they put up a wall of 5" anti-aircraft shells with deadly effect, as much due to shell technology and centralized gunnery control and the VT fuze, as to what the guns were mounted on, to decimate the air wing of the Imperial Japanese Navy for the last time. But carriers played a bigger part in that battle, and what did the 16" guns do?

As bombardment machines, cheaper, slower, less manpower intensive ships could have gotten the job done. The large ships were steadier gun platforms but it still seems that however long the battleships spent shelling a place, that there was still stiff resistance when boots hit the shore. I think the presumed affect of shelling was overrated in almost every invasion. Iwo Jima was not a big island and they shelled the hell out of it, but the caves were so extensive that much of the defenses survived.

Few? True. But Surigao Strait and Guadalcanal come to mind. Kirishima was made mincemeat of.

 

[JohnVF]

Few? True. But Surigao Strait and Guadalcanal come to mind. Kirishima was made mincemeat of.

I don't deny that those were tactical victories but I weigh the incredible cost of the battleship building program and its diversion of manpower and resources, against the loss of two antiquated Japanese WWI-era ships and I see it as a strategic blunder. One of the two Fuso class was sunk, potentially, by PT-boats, at Surigao. The almighty Yamato was scared off by escort carriers and destroyers. Hiei was mauled by lesser ships to be sunk by aircraft the next day. Halsey's eagerness for a battleship encounter (boys and their big toys) left the beach at Leyte almost undefended. Had he stayed there might be more to write home about the battleships, but we'll never know now. I just don't see a single instance of a battleship encounter where you absolutely needed such a weapon for the victory to take place. Perhaps the sinking of the Bismarck,but she was critically wounded/done in by a biplane- which doesn't speak too well for the effectiveness of the battleship, either.

But Washington did pound the hell out of Kirishima. That wasn't a fair fight...they might as well have been two different classes of ships if you take their armament, gunnery control, radar, and armor scheme into account.

 

[Tom Brennan]

I'd even suggest that without the High Seas Fleet, Britain would have not been eager at all to defend the continent. Much of the animosity between the two nations was built upon the potential threat to naval supremacy, when I feel that the Kaiser really just wanted toys like his cousin had..

Indeed, had Flipper not built a big fleet the Brits in the Great War might very well have allied themselves with the Germans (Prussians) against the French and Russians as they did in the Seven Years War. The Brits had a much longer history of allying themselves with various German states against the French than with the French against Germans, that's for damned sure.

 

[Bigerik]

I don't deny that those were tactical victories but I weigh the incredible cost of the battleship building program and its diversion of manpower and resources, against the loss of two antiquated Japanese WWI-era ships and I see it as a strategic blunder. One of the two Fuso class was sunk, potentially, by PT-boats, at Surigao. The almighty Yamato was scared off by escort carriers and destroyers. Hiei was mauled by lesser ships to be sunk by aircraft the next day. Halsey's eagerness for a battleship encounter (boys and their big toys) left the beach at Leyte almost undefended. Had he stayed there might be more to write home about the battleships, but we'll never know now. I just don't see a single instance of a battleship encounter where you absolutely needed such a weapon for the victory to take place. Perhaps the sinking of the Bismarck,but she was critically wounded/done in by a biplane- which doesn't speak to well for the effectiveness of the battleship, either.

Scharnhorst. No other weapon could have won in that scenario. Duke of York did great that night.

And you confuse poor leadership with the potential of the weapons platform.

And actually, the critical damage to the Bismarck was done by Prince of Wales. Without her hits, Bismarck would have just disappeared into the north Atlantic.

Then there were action like Cape Matapan, Mers el Kebir, Casablanca, etc. All surface actions.

 

[Tom Brennan]

Scharnhorst. No other weapon could have won in that scenario. Duke of York did great that night.

.

I was considering mentioning the Duke of York but I was too lazy to look up how to spell Scharnhorst. And I knew you would mention it.

 

[JohnVF]

Scharnhorst. No other weapon could have won in that scenario. Duke of York did great that night.

And you confuse poor leadership with the potential of the weapons platform.

And actually, the critical damage to the Bismarck was done by Prince of Wales. Without her hits, Bismarck would have just disappeared into the north Atlantic.

Then there were action like Cape Matapan, Mers el Kebir, Casablanca, etc. All surface actions.

I still don't think those actions pay back the cost. I just don't. And I see little potential in a large, incredibly expensive weapons system that you have to get within 20 miles of your enemy to cause any damage with. Or one that, like the High Seas Fleet in WWI, is just too expensive to actually put at risk (reminds me of the F22). I look at Scharnhorst and think cruisers could have done her in (and in fact there were cruisers engaged, I believe...lest the really cool reenactment you can stand in on the bridge of Belfast is wrong ). Cape Matapan was awesome gunnery for sure but what risk, really, were the Italian cruisers when they could have been handled by other cruisers or more aircraft or submarines? All much cheaper weapons systems. Well, maybe not much cheaper than a rebuilt Warspite.

Understand that I think battleships are awesome. I have models of them and books about them and I'm fascinated by them. But one of the things that I find most fascinating was how they were ultimately not that useful. I'm fascinated by how they had the expense to nearly break the backs of the nations that built them, for a few guns that needed to be within site of a shoreline.

If the existence of the High Seas Fleet caused Britain to enter WWI against Germany, which caused the defeat of Germany ultimately, which caused the terms of the treaty of Versailles...which caused the bitterness of the German people to allow the promises of a madmen to woo them....you could argue that Hitler is all the battleship's fault:scratch2: (Please don't take that seriously...historical what-ifs are ridiculous).

 

[Tom Brennan]

(...historical what-ifs are ridiculous).

But lots of fun. My favorite what if is if Lee had won at Gettysburg it would've hastened the end of the rebellion by forcing Lincoln and Stanton to bring Grant and the Army of the Tennessee east to fight Lee (the 9th and 16th Corps could've been left in western Mississippi and Tennessee after the fall of Vicksburg and Grant could've moved east with the 13th, 15th and 17th Corps) and I've no doubt Grant, with his confident Midwestern troops (who believed themselves unwhippable) and with the energetic and aggressive Sherman, McPherson and Ord his corps commanders would have whipped Lee.

Meanwhile on the central line of operations (which soon enough became the main line of operations, the fall of Vicksburg having pretty much finished important operations on the River line) the Army of the Cumberland under Rosecrans fights Bragg and his Army of Tennessee without Bragg's having received reinforcements from Virginia. Without Longstreet Bragg loses at Chickamauga and Rosecrans moves on Atlanta (IF Lincoln and Stanton can make him move out of Chattanooga but that's another story).

When Grant finally did come east in 1864 he had to rely on the Army of the Potomac, a rather (as you described the Denon 103) blunt instrument; very tough but also slow and cautious.

 

[Sam Cogley]

Scharnhorst. No other weapon could have won in that scenario. Duke of York did great that night.

And you confuse poor leadership with the potential of the weapons platform.

And actually, the critical damage to the Bismarck was done by Prince of Wales. Without her hits, Bismarck would have just disappeared into the north Atlantic.

Then there were action like Cape Matapan, Mers el Kebir, Casablanca, etc. All surface actions.

Bismarck's rudder was most likely jammed by a torpedo fired from one of Ark Royal's Fairey Swordfish biplanes. Prince of Wales turned the monster around, but it still would have likely reached the safety of the French coast and drydock if it wasn't for that kite.

 

[Bigerik]

Bismarck's rudder was most likely jammed by a torpedo fired from one of Ark Royal's Fairey Swordfish biplanes. Prince of Wales turned the monster around, but it still would have likely reached the safety of the French coast and drydock if it wasn't for that kite.

Cept it was the hole the Prince of Wales made in her forced the move back to France in the first place. Ark Royal would have never gotten close enough had the Bismarck not been seriously damaged by PofW.

Then again, what would have happened if Norfolk and Suffolk would have engaged Prinz Eugen? Then PE would have had to deal with those, while Bismark would have dealt only with Hood and PofW. With radar controlled firing, the British cruisers could likely have dealt effectively with PE. It might not have saved the Hood, but it might have made the Bismark/PofW battle more balanced.

 

[Sam Cogley]

It was certainly a team effort, but that torpedo is generally considered to be the beginning of Bismarck's end. After the rudder jammed, the monster was in deep trouble. If memory serves, something about the engine design made it spectacularly unsuited to being turned by screw adjustments alone.

Hood was a death trap.

Playing "what if?" games, how would things have gone if Lindemann's advice had been followed and Bismarck and PE had pursued and destroyed Prince of Wales while she was still unable to fight?

 

[JohnVF]

Hood was a death trap but the prettiest one afloat. I think that actually played into her demise. She was so stately, balanced, and pretty that she sort of became a poster child for the Royal Navy. And what good would it be to have your poster child in drydock for a few years, with her appearance being changed? What signal does that send? So she was left to fight in her largely original fit, incredibly inadequate even for the engagements likely when she was built, much less 20 years later.

Just my theory! I love the Hood. I think she was the ship of ships as far as looks go.

 

[ruffian]

They did, while not a battleship.. a dreadnaught of its day..

USS Olympia

If you ever visit Philly..

To stay on topic.. in the late 80's was stationed on board the USS Trippe and spent time in both the USS Iowa and New Jersey battle groups.

If in Philly be sure to look directly across the river at Camden as the New Jersey is docked there.

My son's cub scout pack slept on the NJ this spring. It was an excellent trip. We slept in the crew quarters 2 decks down and ate in the mess. You can get into two of the 16" guns. Many of the tour guides had served on it or other Iowa class ships. Hopefully the Iowa will be able to offer the same experience to others.

 

[Sam Cogley]

Hood was a death trap but the prettiest one afloat. I think that actually played into her demise. She was so stately, balanced, and pretty that she sort of became a poster child for the Royal Navy. And what good would it be to have your poster child in drydock for a few years, with her appearance being changed? What signal does that send? So she was left to fight in her largely original fit, incredibly inadequate even for the engagements likely when she was built, much less 20 years later.

Just my theory! I love the Hood. I think she was the ship of ships as far as looks go.

I don't know...there is something violently elegant about the long, streamlined shape and upswept bow of the Iowa-class. To my eye, Hood looks a bit top heavy with that extra-long superstructure.

 

[Tom Brennan]

As for Hood being a death trap; keep in mind that Fisher didn't intend for battle cruisers to stand in line of battle and duke it out with battleships; they were intended to be able to chase down and detroy enemy cruisers and commerce raiders and did well in that role in the Great War, such as the battle of the Falklands.

 

[JohnVF]

As for Hood being a death trap; keep in mind that Fisher didn't intend for battle cruisers to stand in line of battle and duke it out with battleships; they were intended to be able to chase down and detroy enemy cruisers and commerce raiders and did well in that role in the Great War, such as the battle of the Falklands.

It was a commerce raider that did Hood in....

A sheep in wolf's clothing. Fascinating ships. Which reminds me, I need to finish reading Robert Massie's "Dreadnought". "Castles of Steel" was such an entertaining read.

For looks I prefer the look of the WWI British ships as unmodified with tripod masts, especially Tiger and the later Hood. And then freakshows like Fuso and her wartime pagoda or Agincourt's collection of turrets. Iowa was almost too perfect but I understand why people love them. The German battlecruisers like Seydlitz had a nice purposeful simplicity as well.

Speaking of German battlecruiser, Goeben sure had a good run. What a strange career. I wish they'd kept that ship as a museum. But that can be said for Warspite, Enterprise....it's like the only way a ship can survive, is to sink.

 

[Tom Brennan]

A sheep in wolf's clothing. Fascinating ships. Which reminds me, I need to finish reading Robert Massie's "Dreadnought". "Castles of Steel" was such an entertaining read.

The little Osprey book on British battle cruisers is good.

 

[JohnVF]

The little Osprey book on British battle cruisers is good.

I must have that somewhere. I went through a period where I was just obsessed with the battlecruisers. There are several good books on them here but they're in boxes. Which reminds me....need to pick up another shelf like the one I bought at the Container Store last weekend. Their "Wendel" bookshelf fits the mid century look pretty nicely. Better than the Expedits I'm replacing, that's for sure.