-
Hi Guest!
The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Alternate History General Discussion
- Thread starter Elektronaut
- Start date
You don't really need to create some kind of outlandish scenario in order for battleships to remain viable for longer. The armor schemes on larger battleship designs such as the Montana class and Yamato class were proof against all but the largest aircraft dropped munitions available towards the end of World War II. Yamato might have been sunk by air power, but it was still attacked by hundreds of aircraft. If battleships like that had been available in early World War II the aircraft of the time would have had much greater difficulty sinking them due to their lower airframe and weapons performance.
- Pronouns
- he/him
But by that point, the amount of steel needed for a ‘viable’ battleship could surely be better spent… well, anywhere else.
But by that point, the amount of steel needed for a ‘viable’ battleship could surely be better spent… well, anywhere else.
That's with the benefit of hindsight.
- Pronouns
- he/him
There's thirty thousand tons of steel separating a King George class battleship and the Yamato.
I don't think you need hindsight for any of the governments in question- particularly Japan, facing a crippling resource shortage- to realise that that steel could be better used elsewhere.
I don't think you need hindsight for any of the governments in question- particularly Japan, facing a crippling resource shortage- to realise that that steel could be better used elsewhere.
But by that point, the amount of steel needed for a ‘viable’ battleship could surely be better spent… well, anywhere else.
Not if you want to sink the large battleships roaming the seas.
I don't think people quite understand just how tough a large battleship would be to sink. The deck would require a heavyweight armor piercing bomb to penetrate and the torpedo belt would be rated against a far higher explosive charge than an aircraft dropped torpedo can deliver. A submarine might be able to attack with a strong enough torpedo but a 1940s era submarine is a very situational platform. If you don't have another battleship the best alternative option would be something like a Long Lance torpedo attack.
That's with the benefit of hindsight.
The performance of aircraft versus ships in World War II was a result of aircraft seeing continued development while at the same time the naval treaties artificially limited warship development. Battleships aren't totally done for from a defensive standpoint until the 1950s. That's when high performance jet aircraft, anti-ship missiles, and keel seeking torpedoes start entering service. Submarines start becoming more potent from the 1950s onwards too, with nuclear propulsion making them viable platforms for taking the fight to the enemy.
Ironically, the fact that battleships became so rare is part of what made the Iowa class an attractive option for reactivation in the 1980s. Although weaponry had improved by then there weren't actually many platforms that carried weapons capable of penetrating battleship armor. That's not to say that it would have been a good idea to build new battleships in the 1980s though, just that the cost of bringing them back was relatively small compared to the headaches it caused the Soviets in having to think up counters to them.
There's thirty thousand tons of steel separating a King George class battleship and the Yamato.
I don't think you need hindsight for any of the governments in question- particularly Japan, facing a crippling resource shortage- to realise that that steel could be better used elsewhere.
That power differential was exactly why Imperial Japan built the Yamato class. They knew that the other powers were building to treaty limits and thought that they could gain a qualitative advantage over them by building such massive battleships.
Battleships aren't totally done for from a defensive standpoint until the 1950s. That's when high performance jet aircraft, anti-ship missiles, and keel seeking torpedoes start entering service.
One interesting tidbit I've heard (dunno the veracity): Apparently following the lesson of destroying the Tirpitz, a lot of the monster aircraft bombs of the early Cold War were intended originally to have ships be their main target.
One interesting tidbit I've heard (dunno the veracity): Apparently following the lesson of destroying the Tirpitz, a lot of the monster aircraft bombs of the early Cold War were intended originally to have ships be their main target.
That wouldn't be surprising. Tactical nuclear weapons weren't really a thing until the late 1950s/early 1960s. Early nuclear weapons were simply too difficult to handle and hard to produce for non-strategic applications to be given much priority.
- Pronouns
- he/him
That power differential was exactly why Imperial Japan built the Yamato class. They knew that the other powers were building to treaty limits and thought that they could gain a qualitative advantage over them by building such massive battleships.
Right, but again- that's a question of state objectives. What are super heavy battleships for? Engaging other capital ships from world-class fleets.
The thing is, Japan couldn't beat those fleets. It could have built the very best battleships- it did!- it could have built the very best carriers. The USA had more. Even a Royal Navy unchallenged by the Kriegmarine and Regio Marina might have been more than it could chew.
And even if it had beaten them- what for? Now it has an empire in the Pacific that it can't hold down without getting out of China, but if it's out of China it doesn't need the empire in the Pacific.
The war in China itself was probably unwinnable- at least by the standards set by the militarists- but if you're going to spend seventy thousand tons of steel in the service of empire, then spend it in Manchuria.
Or, ideally, spend it on civilian factories and don't get involved at all.
But ignore the old problem of how Japanese doctrine, strategy, political objectives and procurement never matched up- there's really no navy that needs the super-Battleships. Yes, they do their job very well. But, again, what nation needs them to do that job that well and can't accomplish it with smarter spending plans?
Germany certainly doesn't. Italy doesn't, even if it had the capacity to build the damn things. Britain doesn't. The USA doesn't.
You don't need hindsight to realise that putting that much of your industrial output, that many men into a single ship is not a good idea. It's a big ship- but it's a much bigger ocean...
Last edited:
I tried to look it up recently. Managed it eventually, but it took me ages to work out the name. Can't remember how I finally forced Google to cooperate with my mangled memories.Also, random question that occurred to me yesterday: how much name recognition does Tarrantry have with AH fans nowadays?
I was always only barely aware of it myself, but I remember it being practically front and centre on the old AH.com frontpage back in 2005.
This will be relevant to @Guernsey Donkey (I'll explain why if he's not aware of the name).
Not his genre.I've said this before, but I'd be legitimately intrigued in seeing how Harry Turtledove would handle a book involving a 1980s Fuldapocalypse.
Not his genre.
He's done a 1950s WW3 series and Worldwar.
Talwar
Well-Known Sword
- Pronouns
- he/him
His use of multiple, low-level viewpoint characters could provide an interesting take on things.I've said this before, but I'd be legitimately intrigued in seeing how Harry Turtledove would handle a book involving a 1980s Fuldapocalypse.
Less "Gunner, T-72, load sabot" and more "Everybody stay in the basement until the Soviets stop shelling our village", perhaps.
There's a big catch-22 in conventional WW3s in that having someone with an outside perspective would help make it immensely more distinct (even if it has issues like a lack of technical accuracy),but that very few people with outside perspectives have any desire to write them, and understandably so given the inherent contrivance and lack of demand.
Talwar
Well-Known Sword
- Pronouns
- he/him
Are there prominent examples of WW3 stories told primarily or entirely from the perspective of non-combatants?
Walpurgisnacht
It was in the Year of Maximum Danger
- Location
- Banned from the forum
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Are there prominent examples of WW3 stories told primarily or entirely from the perspective of non-combatants?
Raymond Briggs' When The Wind Blows, I guess? Although the point is more about the nuclear apocalypse than WW3.
Yes but that is almost at the end of being something like World War II, but with nukes added.He's done a 1950s WW3 series and Worldwar.
I've read a few stories by an author that had occupying forces in the 16th and 18th century basically hold the pope hostage and said that he turned the holy father into their bitch who had to do whatever they say or they'll do something.
How realistic is that? Is it really possible to hold the Pope hostage by military force?
How realistic is that? Is it really possible to hold the Pope hostage by military force?
napoleon IV
Sheer Animal Cunning of the Groundhog
- Location
- Washington, Douglass Commonwealth
- Pronouns
- he/him
Yeah that really happened on a couple of occasions:I've read a few stories by an author that had occupying forces in the 16th and 18th century basically hold the pope hostage and said that he turned the holy father into their bitch who had to do whatever they say or they'll do something.
How realistic is that? Is it really possible to hold the Pope hostage by military force?
In 964 Holy Roman Emperor Otto I invaded the Papal States, captured Pope Benedict V, and held a synod removing Benedict and declaring antipope Leo VIII to be the legitimate Pope.
In 1303 King Philip IV of France had Pope Boniface VIII arrested and tortured before releasing him three days later. Boniface VIII died a few weeks later and his successor Clement V moved the Papacy from Rome to Avignon where he and the next several Popes were puppets of the French King (after the Papacy moved back to Rome there continued to be French-supported antipopes in Avignon).
Napoleon had Pope Pius VI imprisoned in 1798 (he died shortly thereafter in French captivity) and in 1809 annexed the Papal States and held Pius VII as a prisoner until the Emperor's downfall in 1814.
The Nazis drew up plans to kidnap Pope Pius XII during WWII, but obviously they never carried them out.