Why did the battleship end?

Enjoy the video.

[@aaronjohn6586]

Great breakdown, research and explanation.

[@Ulrich.Bierwisch]

The fact that it was still very hard for carrier planes to sink a battleship in 1942, especially US-carrier planes with bad torpedoes I'm asking myself what if Japan had continued the attack on Midway. There where almost no planes left on the island and the carriers had no torpedo planes and only very few Dauntless left. I don't think there was anything that could bring Yamato and the main fleet in danger at this point.

[@jollyjohnthepirate3168]

Yamamoto had to go back and apologize to the emperor for loosing 4 carriers. Given that they would have no air cover and Pearl Harbor had a great many planes that could fly to Midway to reinforce the Americans. Yamamoto didn't want to loose anymore ships or face.

[@Ulrich.Bierwisch]

@@jollyjohnthepirate3168 A B17 could fly to Midway and they still had some of them but also the first attacks on shipping with the B17 from high altitude showed, that it was extremely hard to hit anything. As soon as the island comes under fire from the sea, it's hard to get anything into the air. So the land based planes wouldn't be able to do a lot. I think at Midway and later at Leyte Yamato had the big chance to make use out of it's guns to fire in target rich environments at a pretty small risk but they decided to run away only to send it later into a situation that was 100% suicidal. In addition the US-carriers could try to do something with the rest of it's planes but with the risk of getting attacked by surface ships or submarines with long lance torpedoes while the Yamato and the whole fleet would have the risk to get attacked by US-submarines with the Mark 14 torpedo. To me this looks like the Japanese philosophy was run away when the odds are to good and attack only when the odds where bad and it took a lot of courage and sacrifice.

[@michaelinsc9724]

The wise move for the US would have been kerp the carriers safe, whittle away at the Japanese fleet as much as you could with your carrier air power, but don't risk the carriers even if it means losing Midway. Japan would likely have taken the island, but it would have been at great cost. Their best bet to do so is have the surface fleet - or part of it- chase the US carriers away from Midway so the invasion fleet could land relatively unmolested.

[@andyb1368]

A bigger reason for why the battleship ended i.e. everybody stopped building them was simple economics. The improvement of aircraft meant that carriers could project power a lot further while using less resources. For the amount of steel that goes into a battleship and the number of people needed in the crew, they simply do not do that much. A carrier projects power out to the range of its aircraft, while a battleship is limited to the range of its guns. A battleship’s AA capabilities with their 5”, 40mm, and 20mm guns are easily replicated on cruisers at a fraction of the cost. Even the US with its beyond astonishing shipbuilding capacity in WWII made a choice to cancel the Montanas. Had we kept the Montanas, that would have meant fewer Essex class carriers, probably losing out on at least five carriers if not more due to the steel tonnage needed for the battleships. And if we had proceeded with the Montanas at the expense of the Essex carriers, our navy would have been less capable. From the Japanese perspective, what did the Yamatos do for them? I think had the 150,000 tons of steel used up by them been instead used to build more Shokakus or Unryu equivalents, Japan would have had meaningful naval offensive capabilities far longer in the war than they did. Battleships are utterly impressive, magnificent ships, but in terms of getting the most offensive bang for the buck, their utility was surpassed by the WWII carrier, and more importantly, the WWII aircraft that were carried on them.

[@miamijules2149]

I guess that would be true if, in the post war, countries started building a whole bunch of carriers but, interestingly enough, that is very much not the case. Sure, a few here and there they were built but no where near enough to account for the death of the battleship.

[@andyb1368]

​@@miamijules2149 Nobody was building a whole bunch of anything post war, so that is no argument. The major players in naval power projection, US, UK, and France did build aircraft carriers post war, but not battleships. And if you want to classify Vanguard as post war based on commissioning, the only reason they built that was to use up the 4 main 15” turrets they had in storage. Since then, plenty of other countries have built carriers, but nobody has built a battleship. Crosser’s research is excellent, but his conclusion just isn’t there. Every ship in a navy from the biggest to the smallest can be sunk, and battleships are more survivable than most. However, a battleship can project power out to about 20 miles, while a carrier can project power out several hundred miles. For countries that don’t go the aircraft carrier route, they’ll use guided missile destroyers and cruisers. Again, there’s very little that a battleship can do, that cannot be done by another platform at a much cheaper cost. The day of the big gun is over. Even modern cruisers don’t even have the 8” guns of the Baltimores let alone the 12” guns of the Alaskas.

[@greggweber9967]

1:31 And redundancy. More than one hit is needed on a good design to stop an important needed thing. An example of the failure of this is the Swordfish vs. the Bismarck's rudder.

[@TrollOfReason]

Or the Bismarck's main guns versus the Bismarck's electric range finders.

[@tomlindsay4629]

Great work and some exceptional photos. It's fascinating that the battleship was repeatedly declared to be obsolete throughout it's entire history, and then it actually was. Thanks for posting!

[@takashitamagawa5881]

The offensive factor should be considered too. The development of air power made the battleship main guns obsolete with their limited range and accuracy in fleet actions. Even in the shore bombardment role in which the U.S. Navy employed its older battleships their effectiveness in reducing Japanese island defenses was limited.

[@finscreenname]

I often wondered if BB's were used in battle groups like CV's are now how they would have turned out. Planes may not have been the only cause of death but just the long range scout planes to know how the enemy was going to attack could give you a major advantage. Sadly when the big guns were outranged by the airplane its days were numbered.

[@waynemartin6065]

Well summarized, with a good conclusion. A follow up on the German guided weapon,and use in naval action would be valuable

[@kampfkatze6092]

Amazing video, very clear & detailed, keep up the good work ! Liked & subbed

[@George_M_]

Battleships were obsolete when they couldn't execute their core function of holding sea space. Guadalcanal. What battleships were present had to hit and run. Yes, they remained pre-eminent bombardment platforms to the end of the war, but thats a glorified seabourne monitor.

[@MERCENARYREVY]

I love your videos because they're always informative. They have a lot of pictures and examples.

[@JokeFranic]

WHY DID IT HAVE TO END 😭😭they were beautiful

[@christophersnyder1532]

I really needn't say anything more, since the comments here did a good job in explaining things. And of course, under Reagan's administration, the four Iowas saw a brief service life, untill they were deactivated, again. Vice Admiral Yamamoto Isoroku knew the battleship age was nearing their end, as well. Great as usual, I hope you hada great Labour Day. Take care, and all the best.

[@ionion-gk3iu]

very good analysis sir, very good! but I believe that the final nail in the coffin was the atomic bomb! also an improvement of weapons!

[@lloydknighten5071]

Crosser, once again, as with all of your videos, you have presented a well researched documentary. I, like other amateur naval historians believe that the aircraft and aircraft carrier were the main nails in the battleship's coffin ⚰️. However, I believe that even if the battleship era had of continued post WW II, guided missles, nuclear warfare, and today's supersonic aircraft would all have ended the era

[@69Applekrate]

nicely done. recommended

[@kidmohair8151]

this is an interesting take on the subject. (I knew Roma was going to be the exception) of course now, the 40 km stand-off fire power of a battleship, is nothing compared to the up to 5000 km stand-off fire power of missiles.

[@niclasjohansson4333]

PoW was only hit by 4 torpedoes, and she was actually sinking from the first hit !

[@jmrodas9]

Battleships are too costly to build, and are vulnerable to cheaper weapons like airplanes, submarines, or even destroyers, the sinking of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse proved that, without air cover they were doomed. When two of them went to bombard Gudalcanal, some PT Boats from Tulagi, chased then off.

[@aaronr.3682]

So, battleships could absorb great punishment for themselves or accompanying ships. But they could not dole out destruction as effectively as other platforms. A very expensive defensive combatant versus an equal-or-greater strength offensive system that is comparatively cheap… the offense will win over time. Even without Fritz X, the economics had battleships in an unrecoverable decline before WW2. It is just a matter of where one draws the line at being obsolescent (though of some use).

[@damianzaninovich4900]

Surviving they did but not being able to fight effectively with their more fragile superstructure damaged and the amount of fuel they consumed makes them a poor investment I’d say but they look cool and pretty intimidating. All the ships were throwing up anti aircraft fire but the battleships got the credit for downed aircraft. No way to determine which ship actually shot the plane down.

[@69Applekrate]

Both North Carolina and South Dakota did well again aircraft esp in '42

[@niclasjohansson4333]

The number of aircrafts downed by the the US battleships is greatly exagerated!

[@panic_2001]

I will never understand why the Japanese were still only using these 2.5 cm guns for anti-aircraft defense in 1944. They could have developed something new and more powerful.

[@clmk28]

I always thought it was because of an acute case of airsickness

[@glennac]

Alright. This’ll be good.🙌🏼 And the comments should be steamy too. 😅

[@danielslocum7169]

Yup.

[@69Applekrate]

Just as carriers were too valueable to go out without proper escort, the same applies to BBs. Prince of whales lacked adequate protection/escorts as did carriers such as HMS Glorious, etc. As far as Pearl Harbor goes and battleships being sitting ducks to air power. The exact same fate would have been for the aircraft carriers if they would have been in port. They are defenceless at anchor. that was the Armys job to protect them while in port that day. good topic

[@miamijules2149]

Which is why the two go well together (like 3rd and 5th Fleets) where the battleships provided an inner circle of pickets and protected the carriers and the carriers protected the battleships with CAP. Yamamoto should have combined his fleet accordingly en route to Midway…. it would have no doubt preserved his forces. Yes, he would have taken damage and he would have taken losses, but there’s no way Spruance would have stuck around knowing that a powerful surface fleet was so close.

[@cavalierliberty6838]

​@@miamijules2149yamamoto's actions seem so foolhardy, considering pearl harbor. Their plan was to attack carriers, but they left their carriers wide open when they knew the americans were coming. I really wonder how the war would have gone had he have been competent.

[@Ricky40369]

So, why shouldn't we include Repulse ?

[@centralcrossing4732]

@@Ricky40369 Technically, the information given is applicable to all types of ships, but I'm focused on battleships in this video. Repulse was a battlecruiser, so it falls outside of what the video is focused on.

[@Ricky40369]

​​@@centralcrossing4732My mistake. I wasn't really thinking. Thanks for the clarification.

[@cavalierliberty6838]

​@@Ricky40369tack onto that, poor repulse was pincer maneuvered. Her mote agile size allowed her to mostly skirt attacks until she was attacked from both sides, which sent her under.

[@kevinsysyn4487]

Aircraft. A single antique WW1 airplane disabled the Bismarck. That's all you need to know.

[@kenowens9021]

Because of those little tiny airplanes.

[@rubenchan932]

The japanese 25mm never gets a brake lol😂