Replies

3) Most importantly of all - it didn't happen! The Japanese launched larger attacks against US BBs than those that took out the HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse and didn't sink any of our BBs. In fact, at Philippine Sea the US BBs were placed well in advance of the US carriers as a "Gun Line" because they were so hard to sink - even though (again) the Japanese had heavy armor-piercing bombs and air-launched heavy ship-killing torpedoes. We don't even have to guess whether your statement might be true - history shows it to be false.

Allow me to clarify....if devoid of air cover which I presumed that was what your post was meaning. And an Iowa-class BB could go just about anywhere it wanted to with virtual impunity...

At the Battle of the Philippine Sea our BBs were not devoid of air cover.

Take away the air cover and a number of the BBs would be sunk as was HMS PoW, HMS Repulse, IJN Yamato and IJN Musashi.

My understanding of the carrier battle group would have the battleships close to the carriers to provide additional anti-air protection.

I would agree the destroyers and destroyer escorts were on picket duty....but not the battleships.

During the battle of the Philippine Sea, Willis Lee’s fast battleships and heavy cruisers provided a primary anti-aircraft screen for the carriers operating behind him. There was certainly a whole lot of American aircraft involved but their role was to hunt the Japanese rather than to protect Lee’s ships.

And in that resulting air battle, the Mariana’s Turkey Shoot, Navy planes basically eliminated Japan’s carrier air power for the rest of the war.

I would agree the destroyers and destroyer escorts were on picket duty....but not the battleships.

There is a difference between 'picket duty', which was indeed comprised primarily of destroyers, and the 'Gun Line' which was comprised of heavier ships with extensive anti-aircraft capabilities. After the attacking planes overflew the pickets, they had to pass the gauntlet of battleships and cruisers to get to the carriers. And yes, there were combat air patrols overhead, but some Japanese planes still got through to attack, and the bottom line was that no alert, maneuvering US battleships were sunk.

The key point I made - again and again - was not about the ability of aircraft to attack a battleship. They could. The key point is that with no armor-piercing bombs or heavy air-launched torpedoes, they couldn't sink the battleships. I guess an analogy would be that you could shoot at one thousands of times with a .50BMG and break a lot of glass, knock out some secondary items (e.g. fire directors for smaller weapons, ships boats), but you wouldn't sink the ship. In terms of ability to penetrate the armor on an Iowa-class BB and deliver mortal damage, a Mk82 light-case bomb, or an Exocet, or a Harpoon is closer to a .50BMG than to a 2700-lb 16-in armor-piercing shell.

To assume that just because an attacker could get a hit means that the target ship would sink just begs the question - it presumes no value for the armor. If aircraft were still launching 2500-lb torpedoes (instead of 900 lb), and if BLU-109s were in widespread inventory, then the BBs would be at significant risk (which is why no one built any after WWII), but with a few exceptions (not in widespread inventory) or anti-tank shells, armor-piercing weapons went away as soon as ships stopped using a lot of armor. (Note: BB armor is heavier than tanks, so you can't just mount a tank gun on an aircraft and declare success.)

That's what makes it so hard to take out an armored ship today.