Talk:Battleship

WikiProject Military history

(Rated FA-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has passed an A-Class review. This article has had a project peer review which is now archived. Associated task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force Military science and technology task force Weaponry task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War I task force World War II task force Associated special projects: Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I)

WikiProject Ships (Rated FA-Class)
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.

naval arms race a cause of WWI

There is a line in the intro The global arms race in battleship construction in the early 20th century was one of the causes of World War I,. Hmm. The global arms race in battleships was not a cause of WWI. The specific arms race between germany and britain may have have been, but I would take a lot of convincing that the other navies mattered much. Even restricting it to Germany/Britain I think this statement too sweeping. The naval arms race turned britain from being broadly friendly to Germany into being broadly antagonistic. However, the main aim of Germany was the conquest of France. The consequence of the naval arms race was not so much that there was a war, but that we decided to join in as an ally of france (so maybe the line ought to read that the naval arms race led to Britain deciding to take part in WWI, though had we not joined and France had fallen maybe there would have been no WWs to discuss, just a 'german annexation of France'). If anything, surely the result of the arms race in that it turned Britain into a potential enemy rather than a neutral, was to make German aggression less likely. Suggestions?Sandpiper) 08:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but "German annexation of France"? Where does this come from? WW1 was a general fuck-up - all of the major continental powers were hoping to get something out of it, and all thought it would be cheap and quick, as in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870/71. But I'm not aware that any of the powers tried to completely annex any of the others. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought the Germans expected to roll over France blitzkreig style and that would be that. Long standing battle plan Sandpiper (talk) 10:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg was a WW2 invention. But yes, Germany planned to knock France out fairly quickly - see Schlieffen Plan. But that does not imply a plan to permanently "conquer" France or even significant parts of it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

So they would just have said 'see!' and gone back home?Sandpiper (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Basically, yes. They might have annexed some strategically valuable land, they may have extracted reparations, they may possibly have put in a friendly government, but its unlikely that they would have permanently occupied France. Note that this did not happen after the Napoleonic wars, or after the war of 1870/1871, or, they other way round, after phase 1 of the Napoleonic wars, or WW1 or WW2, either. Historically, annexation of a large European nation seems to be very rare ever since nation states came into being. The partitions of Poland in the 18th century (and again 1939) are exceptions, and they required multiple participants. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the statement The global arms race in battleship construction in the early 20th century was one of the causes of World War I, should be removed, because it is a false statement. Arguably there wasn't a global arms race of any kind, much less specifically one involving battleships. There was a clear naval arms race involving England and Germany, and the argument has been made that it was one of the precipitating causes of WWI. However, the primary reason for the eventual decision by the English to enter on the side of France was the violation of the neutrality of Belgium. --Dukefan73 (talk) 05:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I may now be arguing against myself, but I think the invasion of Belgium in 1914 was to Britain as weapons of mass destruction were before the recent invasion of Iraq. It formed the legal justification for taking part. I have no doubt the final decision turned on perceived national interest generally. Fisher proposed sinking the German fleet before it grew too big to be tackled with impunity. I think perhaps I am looking at this from the perspective of rising power Germany antagonising most of the rest of the world and maybe ignoring the possible belligerent interpretation of Britain seeking merely to maintain the status quo, ie her on top. Rather similar to whether you believe current US militarism acts towards maintaining world peace or provoking world conflict. It has been argued that the German/British arms race in battleships was the cause of Germany losing WWI. It may dependend whether the sentence is intended to mean the start of a world spanning war (it did get Britain involved) or any kind of war (the factors for a European land war were in place regardless so navies made no difference to there being a war, just a smaller one) Sandpiper (talk) 08:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The questioned statement is still here 9 Mar 2010. While the statement The global arms race....was one of the causes... might fit a "chick or egg first" model, my read of history sees it as a "cart before horse" model: The political rivalries that led to the first World War (and to an extent the self-defense responses to those rivalries) caused the global arms race in battleship construction in the early 20th century. Naaman Brown (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The latest change adding Dreadnought strikes me mistaken. Admittedly far from expert, I've always understood her to be (as intended) a game-changer, to "reset" the building race, which the Germans appeared to be intent on winning. In effect, it was the Brits saying, "We can build better and more, if you want, so stop it." Also, as I understand, the naval building race was a product, less than a cause: Wilhelm II was determined to show Germany equal to Britain, & the stupid naval race was the way he chose, not realizing the Brits could never accept parity, given the implicit hazard to British trade. (This, notice, is a lesson Japan didn't take....) The building race exacerbated tensions, but didn't actually cause them. As to "huge" fleets at Jutland: really not. The numbers were pretty small by contrast even to some fairly minor WW2 engagements. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:28 & 01:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The latest change seems fine to me[1]. The naval arms race began before the end of the nineteenth century; the launching of the Dreadnought simply renewed and exacerbated that race. While it may have been a symptom of one of the other causes (i.e. imperialism), the race itself became one of the causes of the First World War by encouraging belligerence. The name itself is provocative - I don't imagine it would have been used if the RN didn't perceive some threat against which to posture. As for Jutland being "pretty small" compared to WW2 engagements... you're joking right? The only WW2 battle that comes close is Leyte Gulf, and that is only comparable if you call it a single battle (which it wasn't) and include all the ships on the US order of battle. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It may be a matter of perception more than fact on both points. I've understood the naval race to have peaked before Dreadnought, which effectively set it to zero again (per her being revolutionary); it was this intent to reset I understood as the basis of her name: as I said, the Brits saying, "See?" As I understand, her design & the willingess to accept such a major change was a realization of the need to overcome the growing threat from Germany, the need to reset the race to zero, in effect to stop it, not accelerate it; whether that worked may be debatable, but IMO it had at least one desired effect: it gave RN superiority for the immediate future, having the best BBs, & made the threat of large numbers of pre-dreads far less significant. I also understood Jutland minor by numbers, not importance. (I recall some dozen major ships engaged on both sides, & IIRC, there were fair numbers in the Pacific exceeding that.) I by no means suggest Jutland's signficance was small. And, as noted, I claim no expertise on WW1 or its naval matters... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the launch of the Dreadnought did "reset" the race to some extent, although older ships were still employed (e.g. the German High Seas Fleet had six pre-dreadnoughts at Jutland). However, the issue of when the competition "peaked" is more difficult. The Two Power Standard and the expansion of the 1890s (which was really aimed at Russia and France) implies British competitiveness was higher before 1906, but I think that's like comparing apples and oranges. The race continued after 1906 and the ratio of capital ships continued to tilt in Germany's favour after Dreadnought was launched (although it was still 2:1 in favour of the British by 1914) so they were certainly no less competitive. By restarting the race the British had to step up their shipbuilding to stay ahead of their own game, and - returning to the question - that meant more rhetoric ('We want eight and we won't wait!' etc) in favour of a military build-up. I don't think anyone believed the Germans would stop - the changes Dreadnought 'introduced' were already in consideration by naval architects in other countries. The British just got there first, laying down a gauntlet for other nations.

On Jutland: by tonnage it was the largest naval battle in history. By number of ships... more difficult: there were about 60 capital ships compared to 40 in the battles around Leyte Gulf. Again, a bit like comparing apples and oranges, but to state it was "minor by numbers" is really quite wrong! Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to beat it to death... (But to be clear, ed, I do enjoy debating you. ;p A thoughtful & thought-provoking exchange always.) Counting obsolete ships is a bit like saying the Red Army tank corps in June '41 was stronger than the Germans', when most of them were obsolescent or obsolete, & Dreadnought had effectively made the German High Seas Fleet in '06 obsolete.

I'm too ignorant of it to debate if the rhetoric was extra jingoistic (it certainly wasn't aimed at reducing tension), but that needs judging how much was real policy & how much pure hot air (or posturing to intimidate hostile foreigners). Did the Brits believe the Germans would stop? Did they just hope so? Foreign affiars is sometimes based on the hope your target will read your posturing the way you intend & be deterred; viz the leadup to the attack on Pearl, a perfect example of how it can blow up on you. Did jingoistic Brit rhetoric make it worse? Again, how do we know at this remove? I suggest the only way to say for sure is in the military budgets. Did Britain's spike in/after '06? Not AFAIK. QED.

In counting ships, I'm thinking there were maybe a dozen capital ships actually engaging; counting the rest (even tho technically on strength) strikes me like counting Yamamoto's Main Body at Midway. I will stand correction on it, however. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, in terms of ships actively firing their guns, the entire German fleet was heavily engaged, which means 5 battlecruisers, 16 dreadnoughts, and 6 pre-dreadnoughts (though they didn't see as much action), and that's just the German line.

Britain's naval budget did go up considerably after the dreadnought revolution; I don't recall which year it was, but there was the infamous "we want 8 and will not wait" campaign, where (IIRC) Churchill said something along the lines of the Navy proposed 6 new BBs, Parliament offered 4, but they compromised with 8. Holger Herwig's Luxury Fleet gives exact figures, which I can dig up at another time. The German budgets went up considerably more than the British as a direct result of the naval expansion. Parsecboy (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Which just goes to prove I should stay out of things I really don't know much about... ;p I will withdraw any objection. My thanks for the clarification, sir. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No not at all. Simple introductory phrases sometimes conceal complicated topics and it's worth discussing them - it certainly made me rethink what I thought I knew. There are some good articles on Wikipedia on this topic if you want to refresh your memory. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As always, a gentleman. ;D My objection was over the nature of the race, & has been demonstrated wrong, so must needs be withdrawn. I must call it happy accident if it had a beneficial effect. :) Further reading is definitely warranted. ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

At the time (and for many years thereafter) Britain had the world's largest Merchant Fleet (the Merchant Navy) and so having a large navy was thought justifiable, made more-so by the worldwide extent of the British Empire, trade needing to be protected anywhere on the world's oceans, however for Germany the justification was, in effect, almost nil - Germany had few overseas possessions compared to Britain, and had only a minuscule merchant marine, therefore in British eyes the expansion of the German Navy (the Kaiserliche Marine) had no practical purpose other than provoking confrontation with Britain. It was thought that the visit of Kaiser Wilhelm (Queen Victoria's grandson) to Britain and his inspection of the Royal Navy had invoked feelings of envy in him which had led him to want to compete with Britain by building a navy for-which it was thought Germany had no practical use. This expansion of Germany's navy was perceived in Britain as being solely to challenge Britain's naval supremacy, and understandably was not welcome, and various people in the Admiralty and some vociferous Members of Parliament became determined not to be out-built by anyone. At the time (circa 1900) the UK had by far the largest shipbuilding capacity in the world, and in fact I have seen it stated in reputable publications that at the time nine out of every ten of the world's ships were British-built and eight out of ten were British-owned/registered. The result of this was the 'naval arms race' that led up to World War I, in which the British in-effect would match every new German naval shipbuilding programme and in most cases double it - if Germany built two new battleships, Britain would build four - and so-on. At the end of the War in 1918 the Royal Navy had 500 destroyers alone, and has been described as being vast. Britain still had 200 destroyers at the start of World War II in 1939. In contrast the Kriegsmarine had 20 (twenty). At the same time the UK's merchant fleet consisted of around 12,000 ships, with approx 4,000 being lost during the war, the majority due to U-boats, the remainder because of air attack, mines, and other causes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.84.186 (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Doctrine - Fleet in Being

To quote the article

• A related concept was a "fleet in being:" the idea a fleet of battleships could simply by its presence tie down superior enemy resources. This in turn was believed to be able to tip the balance of a conflict even without a decisive battle. This suggested even for inferior naval powers a battleship fleet could have important strategic impact The failure of commerce-raiding German submarine forces between 1939 and 1945 can be contrasted with the success of American submarines against Japan. As Mahan would have predicted, Germany, without a strong navy, failed to achieve victory at sea by commerce-raiding alone. Meanwhile in the Pacific, American submarine groups devastated Japanese commercial traffic, sinking millions of tons of shipping.

I am a little confused as to what point the comparison between the American and German submarine operations is trying to illustrate and how it relates to the idea of a fleet in being. I can see that "Germany, without a strong navy, failed to achieve victory at sea by commerce-raiding alone" seems consistent with Mahan's ideas as presented. "The failure of commerce-raiding German submarine forces between 1939 and 1945" seems at odds with my understanding of events, which is that until 1943 the U-boats represented a substantial threat to North Atlantic trade and could well have ended the war in Europe in favour of the Axis powers. The final paragraph "Meanwhile in the Pacific, American submarine groups devastated Japanese commercial traffic, sinking millions of tons of shipping" is true - but what is the comparison intending to show? A someone inexpert in maritime strategy I am reluctant to edit or remove these paragraphs - perhaps someone more expert could give them their attention. WhaleyTim (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I venture to say it's an inelegant effort to say Mahan got it wrong. True, the Germans had substantial success; in the event, the U-boat was overcome by superior tactics, technology, & construction (Liberty ships in particular). Japan had none of the advantages the Allies did, & lost. Hence, Mahan was wrong. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I have decided to be bold and delete the paragraphs as they seem to be confusing and out of context. WhaleyTim (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article?!

I would expect an article on the development of the battleship, particularly one elevated to the status of FA, to at least mention the introduction of breech loading guns!--Ykraps (talk) 08:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

see Ironclad warship - because battleship is such a big topic this article only summarizes many things! The Land (talk) 09:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless , it is such an important development, it ought to be mentioned here. One of the criteria for FA status is that "it neglects no major facts or details".--Ykraps (talk) 08:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I would expect a featured article to have a consistent reference system, but in this article, some sources are listed in the References section while others are only mentioned in the Notes section. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Status of USS Arizona

There have been a number of recent edits relating to the status of USS Arizona. According to this source [2] she was stricken in 1942, and so, even technically, cannot be described as being in commission. The source seems authoritative, claiming to be the "Official Inventory of US Naval Ships & Service Craft" and its .mil address would indicate an official US Dept. of Defense website.

I haven't seen that. My understanding was she remained on the books. If not, take it out. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the source indicates that she is still "on the books" in the sense that she remains the property of the US Navy, but she does not have any active status. I have edited the article accordingly. WhaleyTim (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

20th Century battleship

While I agree with Toddy1's edit in general, Mikasa was launched in 1900, and is hence, strictly speaking, a 19th century battle ship. What seems to be the intention is "turreted, sea-going, self-powered battleship" (otherwise HMS Victory and HMS Warrior would refute the claim). The whole section is unsourced, too. Can we find a source for this statement? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

As for the century Mikasa was not commissioned until 1902. As I understand it, ships of that era were often launched before they were fully completed, and the remaining construction was completed while the ship was afloat. So she would qualify as a 20th century ship. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ye Gods, arguing Mikasa is a 19th century ship is a level of hair-splitting I never expected even on Wikipedia. The Land (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Spitting hairs was a major part of my academic education ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

....and more seriously, if Mikasa is included in the class of ships we only have very few examples of, shouldn't the clearly 19th century Royal Sovereigns and possibly even HMS Dreadnought (1875) also be included? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The useful way to classify Mikasa is as a pre-dreadnought (I suggest consulting that article along with ironclad for a discussion of how the 1875 Dreadnought differed from Royal Sovereign and from Mikasa). "20th century" is a little misleading because the dominant type of battleship in the 20th century was the dreadnought. "19th century" is both inaccurate and even more misleading ;-)

Regarding sources I am sure it's possible to find one, but I don't regard that statement as particularly likely to be challenged. The Land (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)