Timeline for Why did navies abandon armour?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 7, 2020 at 8:23 | comment | added | DevSolar | @ed.hank: Double-check what you've just said. Battleships were still able to determine the outcome of a battle if carriers are absent. That's a big "if" (especially once the world's navies realized the value of carriers), and exactly the point: If a carrier operates in the area, a battleship will not determine the outcome of a battle. Exactly because its armor is basically meaningless. | |
| Jan 7, 2020 at 0:04 | comment | added | ed.hank | battleships may have been obsolete when fighting carriers, but there were several battles without carriers where battleships/cruisers carried the day. Ohlendof at Surigo Straits, Iron Bottom Sound, etc... | |
| Dec 28, 2016 at 19:21 | comment | added | Bruce James | @SteveBird: The Hood's quick sinking is also said to be due to a practice by its gun crews to not secure armored hatches separating the guns from their magazines. As a result a single hit on a gun turret managed to explode the magazine below sinking the ship rapidly. | |
| Nov 25, 2016 at 1:15 | comment | added | Bruce James | The example of the USS Arizona is a poor one. The WW1-era battleships were not armored to protect from bombs- their armor was designed to protect it from shelling or torpedos. Also their anti-aircraft guns lacked range and the ability to be aimed at high flying targets or dive bombers. BBs built after 1938, as well as the Essex class carriers, and the newest heavy cruisers were far more survivable than ships built in the earl 1930s or before. | |
| Nov 24, 2016 at 15:42 | comment | added | DevSolar | @Spencer: I would not actually make that connection, because I consider it a frequently made fallacy... | |
| Nov 24, 2016 at 15:37 | comment | added | Spencer | I'm astonished that no-one has compared this to the decline in the use of medieval armor with the advent of firearms. | |
| Sep 4, 2016 at 7:48 | comment | added | DevSolar | @Joshua: And you would not fire an RPG at a battleship in the first place. You are taking it too literally, missing the point of my comment. | |
| Sep 4, 2016 at 4:00 | comment | added | Joshua | @DevSolar: An RPG can't breach an Iowa class battleship's main armor. The problem is it detonates against the outer hull and the jet is dispersed by the time it even reaches the armor. | |
| Mar 10, 2016 at 8:07 | comment | added | DevSolar | @Anaryl: The "toll of Norway" was mostly the annihilation of the German destroyer fleet. And the case between Britain and Germany was a special one: Any German fleet ever built was immediately under siege by the Royal Navy. No strategic movement, no open sea encounters. What happens when a major ship gets out into the Atlantik was shown by the Spee and others. That was why the RN was so very much after the Bismark -- in the open, it would have been a much harder nut to crack. But yes, I agree with you in general terms. | |
| Mar 10, 2016 at 7:52 | comment | added | Anaryl | I would add that the battleship was probably obsolete at Jutland even. It's worth noting that the context was inconclusive and thereafter the major European powers realised that their navies were far too costly to throw into pitched battle like at Jutland. After Jutland there were not really any large scale surface fleet engagements between fleets. They occupied more of a deterrent role "checking" each other. There were raiders suc as the Admiral Graf Spee. But as I recall the German Navy took a heavy toll from aircraft during the invasion of Norway from which it never recovered. | |
| Mar 9, 2016 at 10:11 | history | edited | DevSolar | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 6 characters in body
|
| Mar 9, 2016 at 5:47 | comment | added | DevSolar | @vsz: Are you aware that a modern RPG warhead has easily enough penetrative power to defeat a WWII-era battleship's armor basically anywhere? OK, the Yamato's frontal turret armor might be just enough to stop a RPG-30, but you see what I am hinting at here. | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 22:47 | comment | added | vsz | Wouldn't asymmetrical warfare require at least some armor? You probably don't want your expensive missile cruiser to be brought down by an RPG fired from a speedboat. | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 17:19 | history | edited | DevSolar | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Removing HMS Hood, not classed "battleship".
|
| Mar 8, 2016 at 17:18 | comment | added | DevSolar | @SteveBird: Actually I just found that the whole "plunging fire" theory is no longer the main one about why the Hood blew up. Removing mention of that unfortunate ship; though the question was not only about battleships, and the Hood had significant armor protection. | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 17:11 | comment | added | Steve Bird | Actually HMS Hood isn't a good example, since it was a battle-cruiser not a battleship. The British battle-cruisers intentionally sacrificed some armor protection to allow them more speed. | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 16:35 | comment | added | DevSolar | "Commissioned" is the wrong word, I just realized. "Built" is what I wanted to say. | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 16:29 | comment | added | DevSolar | @JonofAllTrades: AFAIK the only battleships that did significant shore bombardment were those of the US fleet, and they enjoyed total air supremacy plus the absence of counterbattery when they did. You don't need armor for that. The US used their battleships in that role because they had them. They wouldn't have commissioned them for that role. | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 16:21 | comment | added | user4139 | Not quite obsolete: they were excellent for shore bombardment; still are, arguably. But they were not really useful for their assumed mission of ship-to-ship combat alá Trafalgar or Jutland, true. | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 16:12 | history | edited | DevSolar | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 3 characters in body
|
| Mar 8, 2016 at 16:09 | history | edited | MCW♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
minor spelling correction
|
| Mar 8, 2016 at 16:02 | history | answered | DevSolar | CC BY-SA 3.0 |