Most important Ironclad/Battleship Engagements

[Raptor1]

I'm doing a school project on the Ironclad and the Battleship, I was wondering what are the 5 most important engagements between Ironclads/Battleships in history

I was thinking:

1. Hampton Roads (First Battle between Ironclads)
2. Lissa (First Ironclad Fleet Battle)
3. Tsushima (Most decisive Battleship engagement)
4. Jutland (Largest Battleship Engagement)
5. The attack on Force Z (While technically not an engagement between Battleships, it was still one of the most important points in the death of the Battleship)

What do you think?

[Ishmael]

Don't forget the last one. The Battle of Surigao Straits. I met a chief gunner's mate who was Mount 51 captain of the forward 14-inch turret aboard USS California(BB-44) from Pearl to V-J day and participated in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Surigao_Strait#Battle_of_Surigao_Strait

[Raptor1]

How could I forget about that one :damn:

I'll just add it in as #6

[AntEater]

Funny, I think the strangest thing about Ironclads/Battleships is how rarely they were used. The list you gave is pretty much all engagements:
Out of my head:
- Hampton Roads 1861
- Huascar vs the rest of the world :D 1875 (I think)
- Port Arthur/Yellow Sea/Tsushima 1904/05
- Doggerbank/Skagerrak/Moon Sound and a few inconclusive and almost-battles
- Renown vs Scharnhorst/Gneisenau 1940
- Scharnhorst/Gneisenau vs various Battleships on their north atlantic raid (almost battles)
- Punta Stilo 1940
- Denmark Straits/Final Battle of Bismarck
- Guadalcanal 14th November 1942
- "Battle of the Blips" Attu 1943 (only one side shot at nothing, but Battleships did shoot a lot there) :D
- Battle of North Cape
- Surigao Straights

Maybe I forgot one or two, but those were basically ALL engagements by first class steam driven armoured warships ever.
Strange, if you consider that the number of sailing ship engagements was much higher in the various wars of the 18th century allone.
Maybe those ships were just too expensive.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Maybe those ships were just too expensive.
Bingo. They were the centerpiece of naval strategy, but everybody realized that you can't lose them. Because of their price tag and the lead time of building the next one.

PD

[Raptor1]

Funny, I think the strangest thing about Ironclads/Battleships is how rarely they were used.
That's why i'm doing this on them rather then on Ships of the Line or something, the list would be endless

I heard somewhere that Dreadnoughts were considered so important in WWI that they were kept close to home, so they barely saw any fighting, which was what they were designed to do

I believe the only decisive engagements between 1st class Steam Warships were the Battle of Tsushima and the Battle of Lissa (But then, the Austrian fleet rammed the Italian ships, So this doesn't really count)

BTW The Huascar thing was in 1879

[kurtz]

I heard somewhere that Dreadnoughts were considered so important in WWI that they were kept close to home, so they barely saw any fighting, which was what they were designed to do

BTW The Huascar thing was in 1879

They were important for the threat, if security was better we could have built them out of waterproof card and they'd have done the same job.:D

[Jacky Fisher]

Tsushima.....for the epic voyage that ended in a right beatdown for the Russians
Jutland........for ending the vogue for battlecrusiers
Lissa............for being the first steam-driven fleet action
Sinking of Force Z........for proving that the Battleship had become almost useless
Savo Island and other battles in Iron-Bottom Sound....for gunnery duals at less than a thousand yards

[AntEater]

Dang, forgot Lissa
Problem with the 19th century stuff is that the classifications were rather murky. You could classify Huascar as a gunboat, but in terms of relative power she was (is) a battleship. Same for Lissa: officially, nearly all vessels taking parts were steam "sloops" or "frigates" while the only ship of the line was unarmoured wooden SMS Kaiser. The frigates and sloops were of course much more powerful and better armed, but somehow there was a reluctance to call ironclads "ships of the line" until about 1890 or so.

Sometimes I ask myself wether we have approached the same situation right now with modern fighter aircraft:
- everybody has them, but they're hardly used for their intended purpose (fighting each other)
- they capture the imagination of writers
- the premier power using them (Royal Navy with Ironclads, USAF/USN with modern fighters) is so dominant that their opponents mostly leave theirs unused even in wartime.
- the most advanced technology available is used to build and develop them
- they're terribly expensive

[Jacky Fisher]

nothing says 'BADASS' like a gun that can fire a shell the size of a Volkswagon beetle nearly 20 miles.

I'd be scared of a fleet with ships named Dreadnought, Victorious, Formidable, and Iron Duke...

unless I had some subs:arrgh!:

[Tchocky]

For the strategic effect of a single powerful battleship, don't forget the Tirpitz.

[CaptHawkeye]

For the strategic effect of a single powerful battleship, don't forget the Tirpitz.

More like "a prime example of how badly World War 2 went for the Royal Navy." :)

Personally, i've always hated the "our battleship makes them scared and paranoid" logic for Fleet in Being. Sorry, but if the only usefull purpose for your battleship is to serve as a distraction, then it's just a massive waste of resources that could have been put to far better use elsewhere.

[CaptHawkeye]

T
Sinking of Force Z........for proving that the Battleship had become almost useless


I'm also not a fan of the "battleships is useless lololololol" stuff prevalent during the World War 2 era. Don't get me wrong, i'm no idiot BB Admiral denial moron who thinks BBs will still be the deciding factor in any engagement and line battles are the way to go. (Hint: If you try to start a line battle with an opponent who is using carriers, you deserve to lose.)

But their are times when you won't be able to use your planes. Such as poor weather, or nighttime. During those conditions, you'd be more than happy to have a BB around. Another thing about them is that *most* decently desinged BBs can take heaps of damage and keep going. I mean, one kamikaze attack after another failed to do jack to any BBs they attacked. Turns out most of them did minimal damage.

BBs are useless for any style of war post World War 2. During WW2, they served a purpose, one that barely justified their cost, but they did have use as essentially large escorts.

[Sailor Steve]

I met a chief gunner's mate who was Mount 51 captain of the forward 14-inch turret aboard USS California(BB-44) from Pearl to V-J day and participated in it.
Cool, though I'm confused. "Mount 51" describes the #1 5" mount on any ship. The forward turret on an American battleship is just Turret #1.

[bookworm_020]

If you want an intresting gun battle, try this one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_auxiliary_cruiser_Stier

http://www.usmm.org/hopkins.html

[Raptor1]

If you want an intresting gun battle, try this one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_auxiliary_cruiser_Stier

http://www.usmm.org/hopkins.html
Thanks, But that's not a Battleship engagement (Though it is funny :lol:)

I'll make sure to include the point on Battleships use as "Fleets in Being", I don't like the idea much but that's unfortunatly thats what they were used for, the Tirpitz is a really good example as her mere presence (however useless) in the North Atlantic forced the Royal Navy to use Battleships as convoy escorts

I think the main thing about BBs is not "Our Battleships makes them scared" but rather "Their Battleships makes us scared", on both sides...

I agree with CaptHawkeye that during WWII the Battleship did have it's place, But after that they just turned almost completely useless because of Guided Missiles and Air Power (Except as shore-bombardement platforms)

[Sailor Steve]

The funny thing about Hampton Roads was that it was neither the biggest nor the most decisive battle of the American Civil War, but it was the first conflict between ironclad ships, and the whole world was curious about the outcome.

I think your list is spot on, if you have to have only five.

As for your observation on the value of battleships; i.e. not losing them being more important that actually using them, I've said something similar myself. I like to liken destroyers to soldiers - the form groups and they fight. Cruisers are perfect for their primary mission - as scouts, and as mighty warriors if need be. But battleships? Battleships are like the ancient champions - Achilles and Hector, for example. They can intimidate all the soldiers and warriors in the world, but they really only exist to fight each other, and almost certainly one of them will die, ending in glory perhaps, but dying just the same; to be remembered forever, but still just as dead.

It just occured to me: does that make the airplane like a plague of wasps, sent by the gods to torment the mightiest warriors? Too much metaphor; I have to go to bed.:dead:

[PeriscopeDepth]

An excellent list Raptor. What level of school is this for, if you don't mind me asking?

PD

[Raptor1]

An excellent list Raptor. What level of school is this for, if you don't mind me asking?

PD

High School, I'm 15

I only have enough room for 5-6 Battles in the project because any more would make the thing too long (Ofcourse i'll have to fill in background on these battles, So i'll end up adding about Port Arthur, Yellow Sea, Dogger Bank...)

[PeriscopeDepth]

An excellent list Raptor. What level of school is this for, if you don't mind me asking?

PD
High School, I'm 15

I only have enough room for 5-6 Battles in the project because any more would make the thing too long (Ofcourse i'll have to fill in background on these battles, So i'll end up adding about Port Arthur, Yellow Sea, Dogger Bank...)
I'm sure you'll end up doing well. Kinda sophisticated for high school, but good on ya. :know:

PD

[kurtz]

I'll make sure to include the point on Battleships use as "Fleets in Being", I don't like the idea much but that's unfortunatly thats what they were used for, the Tirpitz is a really good example as her mere presence (however useless) in the North Atlantic forced the Royal Navy to use Battleships as convoy escorts



Did you mean the Bismarck? I don't think the Tirpitz left the Baltic.

And from another post don't forget the Glorious? in the norway campaign, carriers can come off v. badly if BBs get the drop on them

[Tchocky]

Tirpitz spent the war hanging around the Nordkapp area. Forced the Allies to commit heavy cruisers and battleships to Arctic convoy defence, something they didn't do too much of in the Atlantic.

[CaptHawkeye]

I'll make sure to include the point on Battleships use as "Fleets in Being", I don't like the idea much but that's unfortunatly thats what they were used for, the Tirpitz is a really good example as her mere presence (however useless) in the North Atlantic forced the Royal Navy to use Battleships as convoy escorts


Did you mean the Bismarck? I don't think the Tirpitz left the Baltic.

And from another post don't forget the Glorious? in the norway campaign, carriers can come off v. badly if BBs get the drop on them

A carrier is in a bad situation if any ship gets the drop on it. Your carrier is screwed if so much as a destroyer shows up.

[Raptor1]

I'll make sure to include the point on Battleships use as "Fleets in Being", I don't like the idea much but that's unfortunatly thats what they were used for, the Tirpitz is a really good example as her mere presence (however useless) in the North Atlantic forced the Royal Navy to use Battleships as convoy escorts


Did you mean the Bismarck? I don't think the Tirpitz left the Baltic.

And from another post don't forget the Glorious? in the norway campaign, carriers can come off v. badly if BBs get the drop on them

Yeah, I meant the Tirpitz and the Arctic Convoys, She didn't do anything important during her career except force the British to tie up a huge mass of Ships and Aircraft to defend the Arctic Convoys

As for the Glorious, It is pretty obvious that 2 Battleships...Battlecruisers...W/e (What were the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau anyway? :damn:) armed with 9x 11" Guns can easily annihilate a carrier armed with 4.7" Guns and very little armor with only 2 destroyers escorting her...

[bookworm_020]

There was an Australian sereis called "The Battleships wich is an intresting thing to watch as it traces it's progress from the age of sail to the end of the 20th century

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/documentaries/stories/s573449.htm

I got the book of the series and I'm just about to start reading up on it.

As it points out in the final episode. At the end of WW2 the battleship had reached the point in it's development where it could fire on a target with accuarcy at long range and poor weather, it's just that by this time when it had overcome some of the biggest hurdles in it's development that it became superceeded.

[Jacky Fisher]

I think the Scharnhorsts were grouped as Battlecrusiers, but I'm not sure.

[Raptor1]

I think the Scharnhorsts were grouped as Battlecrusiers, but I'm not sure.
They were classified by the Kriegsmarine as Schlachtschiffs (Battleships) and by the Royal Navy as Battlecruisers because of their relatively light armament (11" Guns as opposed to real Battleships fielding 15" and 16" Guns) and high speed, Even though they were still armored like Battleships

[TheSatyr]

You also have the two naval engagements during the Spanish-American War,but I'm not sure if any of the ships involved would be classified as battleships. Ah well,you could always look it up.

[nikimcbee]

You also have the two naval engagements during the Spanish-American War,but I'm not sure if any of the ships involved would be classified as battleships. Ah well,you could always look it up.

Oh yeah, when the Great White Fleet attacked the Spanish fleet at Manila. Admiral Dewey?

[orwell]

Is there a big difference from Ironclad to Dreadnought? I thought the latter was just a even bigger ship? If they were so valuable, did they see much engagement at all?

[kurtz]

As I understand it a dreadnought is an ironclad but with only one calibre weapon in it's main battery, this meant that ranging from fall of shot was made easier.

[Sailor Steve]

Ironclad was the name given to the original 1850s ships with iron plates mounted on the sides to stop the cannon shells of the time. It took a few years, but this eventually led to ships being built wholly out of iron and steel. When USS Monitor fought CSS Virginia in 1862, all ships with a very low freeboard and the turret being the most obvious feature came to be called 'monitors'.

The British Royal Sovereign class of 1892 were larger versions of ships called armored cruisers, and to distinguish them they were the first ships to be officially named battleships. The practice then was to mount two large turrets and several smaller guns, as many as the ship could carry and still be stable. In all of this practical firing ranges usually stayed within 2000 yards, as judging range by the shell splash was impossible with all those shells falling at once. With the coming of stereoscopic rangefinders and dedicated fire control in 1901 the problem was solved by grouped firing by the fire-control officer. This led to the new problem of different calibre guns having different performances, and the FCO couldn't tell one calibre from another at longer ranges.

The problem was discussed many times, and the only solution was to build a bigger ship with a single-calibre main armament. Since HMS Dreadnought of 1906 was the first ship to be completed with this configuration, all single-calibre big-gun battleships are called 'dreadnoughts'.

[Raptor1]

Note, IIRC a Pre-Dreadnought Battleship (Starting with the Royal Sovereign) was still technically an "Ironclad", It's like the WWII Fast Battleships still being Dreadnoughts, But the term has fallen out of use, Dreadnoughts were never referred to as Ironclads though

As for the Spanish-American War, I think Battleships only participated in the Battle of Santiago de Cuba, But only 1 side had them (Battleships vs. Armored Cruisers)

[jpm1]

the Renown vs Scharnhorst and Gneisesau was a little skirmish between the Renown and the Scharnhorst and the Gneiseinau during the Norway invasion nothing extraordinary . if you have to fill the background maybe you can quote the Warspite which hit the Guilio Cesare during the battle of Punta stilo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Calabria) at a range of 24 000 m which is still to date a record in naval gunnery

[Sailor Steve]

Note, IIRC a Pre-Dreadnought Battleship (Starting with the Royal Sovereign) was still technically an "Ironclad", It's like the WWII Fast Battleships still being Dreadnoughts, But the term has fallen out of use, Dreadnoughts were never referred to as Ironclads though
True, though starting with either the 13.5" Orion class or the 15" Queen Elizabeth class they were sometimes referred to as 'Super-Dreadnoughts'. Also, by that standard, even a destroyer could be called an 'ironclad', and were far in advance of the original ships using that name.

As for the Spanish-American War, I think Battleships only participated in the Battle of Santiago de Cuba, But only 1 side had them (Battleships vs. Armored Cruisers)
I agree. Since all my books are in storage the best I could come up with was this site:
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/navalbattles1800s/p/santiago.htm

Here is their link to photos of the two naval battles:
http://militaryhistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=militaryhistory&cdn=education&tm=13&gps=101_63_1020_611&f=11&tt=11&bt=1&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/spanam/eve-pge.htm

[Raptor1]

Super-Dreadnoughts and Fast Battleships are different, the Queen Elizabeth class was the first real "Fast" Battleship (It was still a Super-Dreadnought though), But WWII Battleships had very different designs (They mostly stopped using Dual Turrets in the main armament, and most of them either had the 2-A-1 layout with 2 turrets in the front and 1 aft, and they were much faster ofcourse)

jpm1, Thanks for that thing about the Warspite and Giulio Cesare