>Building ships too big to risk in combat Why did white people

>>33084035
It's a deterant, and primarily defensive due to its slow speed

>>33084035
its called a coastal defense ship for a reason

>>33084035
Largest battleship was Japanese.

Every industrious nation does it.

The majority of naval vessels, throughout history, never see combat.

>You don't NEED big battleships.

Get out, stay out.

>>33084035

Support, defense, intelligence, deterrence, sea to land artillery capabilities.

>>33084035

>Why build an aircraft carrier if it can't actually fight?

It has numerous other capabilities amd roles than going pew pew at other ships.

>>33084035
Almost all battleships saw plenty service. The 'too expensive to risk' meme comes from the fact that WW1/2 naval warfare was specifically focussed on isolating and destroying key elements of the opposing fleet, which is why there was so much manoeuvring and protection of these elements. Be under no illusion that they weren't designed to be used.

File: Royal Canadian War Kyack.jpg (36KB, 480x411px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 480x411px

>>33084035
THIS
the leafs know the perfect size for their battleships

>>33084219
>slow speed
>I can't hydrodynamics
Battleships were often faster in a straight line than smaller ships, especially late WW2 BBs. Harder to turn though.

>>33084035

Why do I own a bigass diesel truck when I rarely need to haul, or a nice AR when Im not going to war? Because Theyre fucking sweet, and I can afford em

>>33084035
Its not about using them, its about telling everyone else to fuck off, same as nukes

File: african-warrior-6035586.jpg (73KB, 300x450px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 300x450px

>>33084035
>Why did white people do this?

H O W C A N W H I T E B O I S C O M P E T E

>>33084035
Battleships were constantly risked in combat.

>>33084035
It wasn't a matter of too expensive to risk so much as too powerful to waste. Neither side knew where the other's fleet was for most of the war and the ports often had powerful coastal defenses. Nobody wanted to make a move just for it to turn into an ambush.

Additionally, battleships ran through fuel faster than anything else on the sea. Admirals couldn't throw their ships around carelessly as even basic resources like coal became scarce.

This is actually one of the reasons the US had such an advantage. With domestic oil reserves we could throw arround Iowa class battleships like cruisers.

>>33084035

It was more of a political weapon, a deterrence to prevent wars. It was to show "We have the dollars, logistical, manpower, material and technological prowess to construct these overpowered and unnecessary weapons, don't fuck with us".

The same reason why the United States has 11 supercarriers.

>>33084944

While I agree that sentiment applies to a lot of things (like when people ask why I have so many guns) I don't think it quite applies to WWII battleships

>>33084035
Same reason we built a bunch of nukes we'll never use

>>33086363
With a double firing line and one behind line behind a sandbag wall.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1csr0dxalpI

>>33084035
To tie up your opponents resources.

If you have a battleship in port then your opponent has to keep sufficient naval forces to sink it waiting around for it to leave. This weakens your opponents naval efforts in other theaters without any risk to your own ships.

Alternatively, you could take the British strategy and just throw battleships at every naval problem you have, without unnecessary luxuries like "escorts" or "air cover", and hope they don't sink.

>>33087264
gg ez no re

>white people
It's a rich people thing, not a white people thing. Sorry you're poor, OP.

Y A M A T O
O
L
O

>>33087442
>without unnecessary luxuries like "escorts" or "air cover", and hope they don't sink.

truly masters of the seas

>>33084259
>>33084368
>>33086455

Also, on rare occasion, the other side's battleships got way too close to your shit and your battleships could go out and (quite literally) slug it out with their battleships for hours.

It was a rare event, sure, but it did happen.

Battleships were seen as being too powerful, and were swiftly neutered via treaties.

To this day, the Iowa class is the most powerful surface ship on the planet.

Load her up with nuclear shells and seeing as how 75% of humanity lives near the ocean/river, that ship can wreck

File: New Jersey.jpg (671KB, 1716x974px) Image search: [Google]

671KB, 1716x974px

>>33084035
>What's the point of a battleship if it can't actually fight?

File: IMG_0173.jpg (37KB, 600x357px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x357px

>>33084035
>Why did white people do this?
>White people
>wite ppl
Go back to /nig/ or in terms you might understand
Ooga booga jigga boo jigga boo

>>33084368
>Almost all battleships saw plenty service.
"oh we spotted something that can hurt us, turn into opposite direction and run away at flank speed!" type of service.

File: download.jpg (9KB, 422x119px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 422x119px

>>33084035
>why did white people do this
>white people
>implying the Yamato wasn't the biggest meme of the second world war

>>33089354
>implying porch monkey tar babies can read

>>33084035
The British navy kept the German Navy in port for both world wars with battleships.

>>33084035
Battleships got plenty of shit done before the development of aviation made carriers the best thing since sliced bread.

>>33090778
What in the fuck are you talking about? Even in World War II there were several engagements between battleships.

>>33090778

Can you point out a time where that actually happened?

>>33084035
>Why did white people do this?

the largest battleship ever made was built by asians.

File: thanks washington naval treaty.png (68KB, 1193x473px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1193x473px

>>33090803
>tfw the washington naval treaty fucked everything up

>>33091550

Remember that the 20's and 30's were periods of economic downturn, part of the purpose of the treaty was to allow the nations to not worry about spending a shit ton of money on bigger navies.

Even if the treaty had not gone into effect, the navies of the world would still have found their budgets cut greatly

>>33090803
Everything is a meme if you're up against the US navy you retard.

>>33092002

Well, everything except for surprise attacks on Sunday mornings

File: franklin-delano-roosevelt-laughing-photo-1.gif (287KB, 465x664px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 465x664px

>>33092316
>surprise

>>33084035
>building gangs to large to stay under the radar during combat

Why did niggers do this? What's the point of a gang if you cant kill people without the cops getting involved?

>>33084244
>The majority of naval vessels, throughout history, never see combat.
Uh, no.

There has been at least low-grade naval conflict through most of history all the way up to the mid-1800s. During all this time, most naval vessels for any navy would see pretty regular and constant levels of engagements. Five things changed all this gradually, starting around the 1860s:
>wind-independent ship power and steel construction increasing speed and reliability of sea travel
>aircraft supplanting naval fleets over time as they eyes, transport and passenger liners of empire
>modern communications technologies, beginning with the telegraph and moving into wireless communications, both politically across the world and between naval vessels themselves
>long range sensors, both on aircraft and naval vessels
>nuclear weapons proliferation killing all chance for endgame profit for great powers engaging in wide-scale but low-intensity naval conflict over trade routes, merchant shipping and far-flung possessions/colonies

>>33091550
>we want larger more useless battleships

>>33091550

This is why carriers and planes got all the funding.

If battleship development was allowed to evolve, today we would have impenetrable floating fortresses that could shell targets 1000 miles away

>>33092349

Yea, surprise. Technically.

I mean, I occasionally post about my intent to take over the world.

Doesn't mean I'll do it, but if I do conspiracy theorists will say it was an inside job.

>>33094208
Bbfag go home

>>33088185
This post reveals a profound level of ignorance

>>33094208

>meanwhile in the real world, carriers were restricted by treaties even more than battleships were

>>33094350

Restricted by the panama canal and where they can dock, maybe.

>>33094411

And by tonnage limits established in treaties.

>>33094434
>>33094350
Nope.

File: Limits for Aircraft Carriers.png (255KB, 632x945px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 632x945px

>>33094478

Yes. The Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 limited the displacement of purpose-designed aircraft carrier to being below 27,000 t. in terms of standard displacement. This is must less than the 35,000 t. limit that was imposed on battleships. Furthermore, each signatory nation had a cap on the total tonnage they could have in terms of aircraft carriers.

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/us-treaties/bevans/m-ust000002-0351.pdf

File: ford.png (129KB, 331x582px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 331x582px

>>33094633
whoops

>>33094948
Why do you post in these threads if you can't even into basic wiki-tier historical research?

The Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 and the London treaties of 1930 and 1936 were increasingly ignored/violated in the ramp up to WWII. By 1934, Japan had served notice that they would no longer be bound by the treaty starting in 1936. Italy soon followed. After that, it was a free for all again.

Unfuck yourself, anon. This is basic WWII naval history shit.

File: 1485286897526.gif (3MB, 360x203px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 360x203px

>>33094948

Damn, somebody better call the cops and tell them that the Navy is making their carriers too big!

>>33086455
>Additionally, battleships ran through fuel faster than anything else on
Battleships and carriers were the most fuel efficient class of boats in WW2.

>>33095127
>Battleships and carriers were the most fuel efficient class of boats in WW2.
In terms of fuel tons per displacement ton moved, yes. Not in terms of total fuel required.

They were thirsty big bitches. Not as thirsty as they should have been considering their size, but thirsty all the same.

>>33095160
Regardless your theory is mistaken as no one would send a destroyer on a job that requires a battleship just because muh fuel. You would simply not send anything at all or you would be required to send, say, 2 cruisers to do the same job at much higher cost.

>>33095174
I'm not that anon. I was simply noting that, whatever other retardation he is victim to (like suggesting WWII BBs ran on coal), he was correct in suggesting that fuel UNREP for capital ships, especially in the Pacific Theater, was a constant and serious logistical and strategic planning headache. Especially as BBs and CVs often squirted their escorts fuel when necessary.

You can't run ships that large as fast as they did as far as they did and not realize a logistical cost.

>>33095227
>You can't run ships that large as fast as they did as far as they did and not realize a logistical cost.
This is true but in the end you had to pay the cost if you wanted to operate, and it was cheaper to do it with battleships + escort than a larger number of smaller warships. In any case I think that anon actually thinks battleships were the hummers of the sea.