7 ms·

Well, in retrospect it's easy to say that air power is the future and battleships are obsolete. But with the information available at the time, I don't think it

by jabl 5y ago

Well, in retrospect it's easy to say that air power is the future and battleships are obsolete. But with the information available at the time, I don't think it really was that clear back in 1932. Back then, no capital ship had been sunk let alone been severely damaged(?) by aircraft. Aircraft, and in particular naval aircraft, at the time were flimsy biplanes, with monoplanes slowly entering the scene. Sinking a battleship with those? Pfft, entirely reasonably people said. I mean, put yourself into the hypothetical supreme naval planner of, say, the US or Japan at the time. Are you really going to gamble your entire nations (or empires, if you will) capability to project force overseas on the notion that air power is the future and battleships are obsolete? If you're wrong, the enemy battleship fleet will just shrug off your feeble aerial attacks and proceed to crush your navy and conquer your overseas assets. So in that sense it's no surprise that both USN and IJN built both battleships and carriers. And at least the US kept building them long after Pearl Harbor (though the Iowas were all ordered before Pearl Harbor, but they weren't cancelled in favor of carriers or converted into such either).

aqme28 5y ago
Totally agreed, politically, but wasn't Billy Mitchell demonstrating air power vs naval as far back as 1921? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Mitchell#Project_B:_Anti-ship_bombing_demonstration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Mitchell#Project_B:_Anti... It seems mostly like the powers that be weren't ready to accept it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jabl 5y ago
  Indeed, Mitchell's experiments were one of the first to suggest that air power might have a role beyond scouting in naval combat. And no doubt, history proved him to be right. But again, it would still have been a very risky gamble that air power is the future when all your potential adversaries are building ever bigger battleships.
greggyb 5y ago
> I mean, put yourself into the hypothetical supreme naval planner of, say, the US or Japan at the time. Are you really going to gamble your entire nations (or empires, if you will) capability to project force overseas on the notion that air power is the future and battleships are obsolete? Per the fine article, Japan did devote their preparations to air superiority and carried out exactly the attack forewarned by the 1932 war games. So, yes, that seems to have been a good strategy.
- jabl 5y ago
  They didn't completely rely on that though, as they, for instance, ordered the Yamato class battleships in 1937, at great expense and years after the wargames mentioned. The IJN seems to have been quite obsessed with their Kantai Kessen doctrine, where battleship fleets would slug it out in one decisive battle.
  - protomyth 5y ago
    To be fair, some American Admirals believe in battleships fleets slugging it out. I cannot remember which battle, but it was basically caused by an American Admiral moving his BBs for just such a battle.
- aphextron 5y ago
  > So, yes, that seems to have been a good strategy The point though is that this was a massive gamble on Japan's part in the 1930's. They had no idea if it would actually work.
  - mannykannot 5y ago
    One can equally say that those who assumed airplanes did not present an existential threat to battleships were taking a massive gamble - it just did not seem like it to them. On the other hand, it is worth noting that Japan’s early enthusiasm for aircraft carriers was partly driven by the terms of the Washington and London naval treaties, which limited its battleship fleet. As for having evidence that a successful attack on Pearl Harbor could be made, its planners looked at not only the exercises described here, but also the British attack on the Italian fleet in Taranto harbor in 1940.
snakke 5y ago
Your hunch is correct. There is a quote from a british naval officer that roughly says that -if they were right [on aircraft carriers being the next best thing and battleships being obsolete] they'd win the war. If they were wrong, they'd lose the empire.- The exact quote escapes my google-fu sadly. I'm quite postive I've seen it in either one of Indy Neidell and his team's WW2 week-by-week episode[0] or one of the many excellent Drachinifel's videos about all things naval history[1]. [0] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCP1AejCL4DA7jYkZAELRhHQ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCP1AejCL4DA7jYkZAELRhHQ [1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4mftUX7apmV1vsVXZh7RTw https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4mftUX7apmV1vsVXZh7RTw
- willhslade 5y ago
  Just to play devils advocate isn't this happening right now with the US army's dependence on aircraft carriers vs the Chinese and Russian supersonic missiles?
  - JackFr 5y ago
    The vulnerability of aircraft carriers to cheaper weapons notwithstanding, there is currently no other platform which does what a carrier group does. So they’re very expensive and much more vulnerable than they were 30 years ago — what else is available to project power 10000 miles from the US in a robust and flexible way? When that thing exists I think we’ll adapt to it quickly.
    - magicsmoke 5y ago
      The other uncomfortable possibility is that there will be no safe way to project force overseas in the face of overwhelming land based systems, and that the US will be limited to projecting force around where it has terrestrial assets and away from rival powers.
      - ericmay 5y ago
        Kind of - but that would just eliminate everyone from projecting power except the United States, who has basis in places like Guam, Germany, Japan, etc.
mannykannot 5y ago
It is reasonable to say that it was not so clear then as it is in retrospect, but the point being made here is that contemporary attempts to clarify the issue were not just ignored, but actively sabotaged by the naval establishment. Deliberate ignorance is not the same as being justifiably uncertain.
AdrianB1 5y ago
Flimsy planes don't sunk battleships, torpedoes do and this was proven in WW1. By the time of WW2, torpedoes were even better, also the planes carrying it. If you include bombers, it was obvious that planes can sink battleships and destroyers. The article is about dismissing proven danger as being unrealistic. All you need to do is to have some radar stations (and not to ignore it) and patrol aircrafts and a good alerting system so you can raise your planes in the air. It is that simple.

by jabl 5y ago

aqme28 5y ago

Totally agreed, politically, but wasn't Billy Mitchell demonstrating air power vs naval as far back as 1921? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Mitchell#Project_B:_Anti-ship_bombing_demonstration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Mitchell#Project_B:_Anti... It seems mostly like the powers that be weren't ready to accept it.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jabl 5y ago
Indeed, Mitchell's experiments were one of the first to suggest that air power might have a role beyond scouting in naval combat. And no doubt, history proved him to be right. But again, it would still have been a very risky gamble that air power is the future when all your potential adversaries are building ever bigger battleships.

greggyb 5y ago

> I mean, put yourself into the hypothetical supreme naval planner of, say, the US or Japan at the time. Are you really going to gamble your entire nations (or empires, if you will) capability to project force overseas on the notion that air power is the future and battleships are obsolete? Per the fine article, Japan did devote their preparations to air superiority and carried out exactly the attack forewarned by the 1932 war games. So, yes, that seems to have been a good strategy.

jabl 5y ago
They didn't completely rely on that though, as they, for instance, ordered the Yamato class battleships in 1937, at great expense and years after the wargames mentioned. The IJN seems to have been quite obsessed with their Kantai Kessen doctrine, where battleship fleets would slug it out in one decisive battle.
- protomyth 5y ago
  To be fair, some American Admirals believe in battleships fleets slugging it out. I cannot remember which battle, but it was basically caused by an American Admiral moving his BBs for just such a battle.
aphextron 5y ago
> So, yes, that seems to have been a good strategy The point though is that this was a massive gamble on Japan's part in the 1930's. They had no idea if it would actually work.
- mannykannot 5y ago
  One can equally say that those who assumed airplanes did not present an existential threat to battleships were taking a massive gamble - it just did not seem like it to them. On the other hand, it is worth noting that Japan’s early enthusiasm for aircraft carriers was partly driven by the terms of the Washington and London naval treaties, which limited its battleship fleet. As for having evidence that a successful attack on Pearl Harbor could be made, its planners looked at not only the exercises described here, but also the British attack on the Italian fleet in Taranto harbor in 1940.

snakke 5y ago

Your hunch is correct. There is a quote from a british naval officer that roughly says that -if they were right [on aircraft carriers being the next best thing and battleships being obsolete] they'd win the war. If they were wrong, they'd lose the empire.- The exact quote escapes my google-fu sadly. I'm quite postive I've seen it in either one of Indy Neidell and his team's WW2 week-by-week episode[0] or one of the many excellent Drachinifel's videos about all things naval history[1]. [0] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCP1AejCL4DA7jYkZAELRhHQ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCP1AejCL4DA7jYkZAELRhHQ [1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4mftUX7apmV1vsVXZh7RTw https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4mftUX7apmV1vsVXZh7RTw

willhslade 5y ago
Just to play devils advocate isn't this happening right now with the US army's dependence on aircraft carriers vs the Chinese and Russian supersonic missiles?
- JackFr 5y ago
  The vulnerability of aircraft carriers to cheaper weapons notwithstanding, there is currently no other platform which does what a carrier group does. So they’re very expensive and much more vulnerable than they were 30 years ago — what else is available to project power 10000 miles from the US in a robust and flexible way? When that thing exists I think we’ll adapt to it quickly.
  - magicsmoke 5y ago
    The other uncomfortable possibility is that there will be no safe way to project force overseas in the face of overwhelming land based systems, and that the US will be limited to projecting force around where it has terrestrial assets and away from rival powers.
    - ericmay 5y ago
      Kind of - but that would just eliminate everyone from projecting power except the United States, who has basis in places like Guam, Germany, Japan, etc.

mannykannot 5y ago

It is reasonable to say that it was not so clear then as it is in retrospect, but the point being made here is that contemporary attempts to clarify the issue were not just ignored, but actively sabotaged by the naval establishment. Deliberate ignorance is not the same as being justifiably uncertain.

AdrianB1 5y ago

Flimsy planes don't sunk battleships, torpedoes do and this was proven in WW1. By the time of WW2, torpedoes were even better, also the planes carrying it. If you include bombers, it was obvious that planes can sink battleships and destroyers. The article is about dismissing proven danger as being unrealistic. All you need to do is to have some radar stations (and not to ignore it) and patrol aircrafts and a good alerting system so you can raise your planes in the air. It is that simple.