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_...Surigao_Strait

[Raptor1]

How could I forget about that one

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 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)
- 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]

Originally Posted by AntEater

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]

Originally Posted by AntEater

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]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

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.

[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

[Tchocky]

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

[CaptHawkeye]

Originally Posted by Tchoky

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]

Originally Posted by Jacky Fisher

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]

Originally Posted by Ishmael

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_..._cruiser_Stier

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