- On one of our recent videos, one of our commenters,
who goes by Quack A Doodle, asked:
Will the US bring back the old World War II ships?
Is that a good question?
No.
And yes.
- No, no, no, no, no, no, yes.
- I mean, yes, it's a good question,
but as for the old World War II ships,
well, let's talk about it.
The battleships of yore maintain a special place
in the hearts of Navy enthusiasts
who imagine the massive broadside salvos
when the USS Iowa hurled 15 shells at once
against an enemy force,
smacking communists with 18 tons of steel and explosives
each time from up to 20 miles away.
Every few years,
there's a new call to bring these behemoths back.
The Navy could, but it won't.
And I'm gonna tell you why.
♪ Tell me why ♪
- But first, let's look at the role battleships
were supposed to play in naval warfare.
These ships were floating fortresses
with massive, long-barreled naval artillery.
The idea was that these ships
would form battle lines at sea.
Battleships would line up, present their broadsides,
and overwhelm an enemy force with firepower.
During the Russo-Japanese War of 1904 to 1905,
battleships proved this strategy could work.
Typically, the side that won a fight
was the one that got their battleships properly lined up
against the enemy's formation first.
The best success came when one fleet could cross the T,
sailing their line of ships perpendicular
to the front of the enemy line
so they could fire all broadsides
whereas only a few enemy ships could fire
from their forward turrets.
The Japanese success added fuel to an arms race
already playing out across the world's shipyards.
The British launched the HMS Dreadnought in 1906,
only a year after construction began.
It was the most powerful weapon of war at the time
and could fire shells four feet tall at ranges of 10 miles.
It redefined naval warfare,
and all the powerful nations of the world
began building copycats,
leading to the battleships' huge role in World War I.
Except, fights between battleships
were actually pretty rare in World War I.
This was partially because they already cost so much
to build that it was considered foolhardy
to risk them when victory wasn't essential.
Instead, battleships were often used to support operations
onshore or to secure trade and supply lines.
But there were clashes between battleships,
the largest of which was the Battle of Jutland in 1916,
by some metrics, the largest naval battle ever fought.
Over 250 ships participated, including 50 battleships.
The British had better ships and more of them,
but suffered from poor gunnery and debatably poor tactics.
Germany won the tactical exchange,
but Britain won strategically.
It was the golden hour of battleships,
still the kings of the ocean.
But during World War I,
a new weapon was introduced
that would change naval warfare as we know it: the carrier.
It would take decades for bombers
to be effective weapons against capital ships,
but the change was already underway
by the time Germany invaded Poland,
and arguably complete by the time Pearl Harbor was attacked.
Once naval aviation was capable
of delivering repeated torpedo and bomb attacks
hundreds of miles from their ship,
the battleships' max ranges that hovered near 20 miles
made it too vulnerable for the frontline fighting.
Even super battleships like the Yamamoto
and their support vessels were forced to turn back
when they thought they were facing
even a single carrier fleet.
In fact, the Yamamoto only fired its guns
against a surface target in one battle
before it was sunk in 1945.
And what sunk it?
Carrier-based aircraft.
But its sister ship, the Musashi,
oh, also saw minimal fighting before sinking
due to damage from carrier-based aircraft.
Instead, battleships took on a role
supporting amphibious landings,
raining steel on enemy positions
as Marines and soldiers pressed ashore.
And that's the role battleships filled for decades,
supporting landings in Korea, Vietnam,
and even a fake amphibious landing in Iraq in 1991.
So what role would a recommissioned
or newly built battleship play today, Quack A Doodle?
Not much of one.
The Navy could recommission a battleship,
but they take tons of fuel and manpower,
often over 1,500 crew members.
And the best conventional naval guns
still only shoot about 20 miles.
There is one game-changing technology
that could resuscitate naval artillery: rail guns.
They can provide massive firepower
at ranges of over 100 miles, speeds of over mach seven,
all without conventional explosives that increase the risk
of catastrophic damage during a fight.
It's not too hard to imagine a nuclear battleship
with multiple rail guns powered by the reactor
and massive capacitor banks.
But even then, the battleship wouldn't have the range
to hit Chinese shore installations without venturing deep
into the defender's anti-ship missile range.
So, the future is likely to lie in extended range missiles
and carrier drones and aircraft,
all still capable of attacking targets hundreds of miles
further out than even a battleship with a rail gun could.
Speaking of battleships,
make sure you check out our video on Fort Drum,
the concrete battleship built by the United States
in the early 1900s.
- [Skye] America's concrete battleship.
Construction on El Fraile began in 1909
and was completed by 1916.
The new structure was 350 feet long
and 144 feet at the widest point.
- If you've got a burning question
about US military history, leave us a comment below.
We read all the comments.
All of them.
All of your comments, yeah.
Thank you to everyone who is nice.
And to all the rude trolls, go (bleep) yourself.
(upbeat music)