What's your favorite ship?

That would bring new meaning to the food California Rolls in California. On a serious note the invasion of Alaska may have suceeded had the US Carriers been destroyed.
Oberst was that ever a valid plan for the Japanese? I am completely ignorant of Japanese intentions so this is new for me. Any details would be appreciated.

 

Oberst was that ever a valid plan for the Japanese? I am completely ignorant of Japanese intentions so this is new for me. Any details would be appreciated.

HO might have some more. Given more time some of the Japanese ambitions against the United States may indeed have been realised. (Germany & Italy both had plans to do the US injury)

Strategic lines to Japanese invasion of America

For Japanese Naval strategists, an invasion of American, Mexican, and Central American Pacific coasts would have required naval bases in the Aleutian and Hawaiian islands, as well as the Mexican Revillagigedo and French Clipperton islands.<o:p></o:p>
From the Aleutians, Japanese forces would have landed in <st1:state w:st="on">Alaska</st1:state> and <st1:country-region w:st="on">Canada</st1:country-region>, from <st1:state w:st="on">Hawaii</st1:state> naval or airborne landings in Washington state, Oregon, and California were considered. From these bases, long-range heavy land-based bombers or flying boat attacks on <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> territory could be launched. The High Command staff considered bombing San Francisco, Panama, Los Angeles, the Texas oilfields, in coordination with German naval strikes against Boston, Washington D.C. or New York. The use of biological and chemical weapons was also considered.


The poor performance of the Japanese navy at Midway finished Japanese aspirations for the invasion of the West Coast. <o:p></o:p>

 

Oberst was that ever a valid plan for the Japanese? I am completely ignorant of Japanese intentions so this is new for me. Any details would be appreciated.

In June of 1942, the Japanese invaded the Aleutian Islands of Attu and Kiska, it was bloody fighting with some 4000 US and Canadian casualties. The Japanese were defeated in August of 1943. Little is discussed about this battle.

 

In June of 1942, the Japanese invaded the Aleutian Islands of Attu and Kiska, it was bloody fighting with some 4000 US and Canadian casualties. The Japanese were defeated in August of 1943. Little is discussed about this battle.

There is an opening if I have ever seen one!

 

The Aleutians Operations
1942-1943

When the Japanese occupied the islands of Attu and Kiska in the Aleutians in Alaska in June 1942, the Allies had to remove them before they could attack the Kuriles. The Aleutians would be the only land battles in North America during World War II. The cold weather and remote location would make resupply of the Japanese garrison difficult, while the Americans would send thousands of highly trained soldiers to attack the outpost that conceivably could threaten Canada and the Western coast of the United States.
When the Dutch Harbor installations were attacked on June 3, 1942, the Americans were not fully prepared for an invasion. But occupying Attu and Kiska was a feint for the Midway operation, with little value other then the tactical goal of drawing the US Pacific Fleet into a major surface engagement. Reading the Japanese codes, the US Navy ignored the landings on Attu and Kiska and went to the defense of Midway, sinking most of the First Air Fleet.



The Americans left the Japanese garrisons in the Aleutians alone until a sufficient fleet with effective land units could be assembled. In January 1943, an attempt to reinforce the Japanese garrisons was repulsed with heavy losses in the Battle of the Komandorski Islands. In March 1943, the US Army 7^th Division landed on Attu, and killed all but 30 of Attu's 4700 defenders. The end came in the form of a disorganized, drunken charge, called “Banzai”by the Americans, who heard the word screamed by the advancing Japanese.
In May 1943, the crack 10^th Mountain Division and a Canadian force landed on Kiska, and after some sporadic fighting, the Americans found the island deserted. The Japanese had abandoned the island, except for a covering force that committed suicide.
From June 1943 until the end of the war, aircraft from the Aleutians attacked the Kurile Islands, Japan's northernmost possessions. The Aleutians saw cold-weather fighting that was bitter and protracted, and largely ignored by the American public.

 

The Southampton class cruisers very elegant, but I think cruisers out of all ships
in the fleet were very useful allrounders.
Regards Robert

 

I've predictably plumped for the battleship. Particularly the Scharnhorst. It was the striking name that drew me to it as a youngster, and I've always looked out for information and books on it since.

 

I voted for the destroyer. They brought the lion's share of the BEF back from Dunkirk, including my Grandfather on HMS Malcolm.

 

Wonderful ships.All very good at their pre-determined tasks.
My vote goes to the minesweeper,minelayer,motor-torpedo boat,motor gunboat,harbour defence vessel,coastal convoy escort,patrol boat,covert ops delivery/recovery launch,anti-submarine boat,rescue launch,ambulance launch,invasion forces command vessel,the humble 112 ft Fairmile B.Built with plywood frames out of MFI-type flatpacks in all commonwealth countries and designed only to last the war there's still 30-40 sound examples around the world still serving a purpose.What more could you ask?

 

I to voted BattleShip, awsome firepower, future prospects at the time were imense - and then came the dramatic advance in air power, no match - .
My favourite? HMS Prince of Wales, not stood a chance - hurriedly finished, no troubleshooting faise, guns that never worked properly, and never any air cover exept on the Malta run, yet they gallently went searching at the last for the major japanese invasion fleetand fought off 'modern' air attack for 2-3 hours

 

Yorktown class carriers, shortly followed by Essex class. Battleships are just bomb magnets. ;^)

 

Interesting to note that The Missouri, New Jersey, Iowa and Wisconsin were all still on active duty long after the WWII carriers all had been scrapped.

 

Interesting to note that The Missouri, New Jersey, Iowa and Wisconsin were all still on active duty long after the WWII carriers all had been scrapped.

Good point however look at the modern day carriers that replaced them. WW2 carriers were just platforms (still my favourite though), now they are thriving cities!

Without the hurriedly constructed carriers the Pacific would have been quite a different battleground.

Those battleships were made to last and underwent modern firepower alterations. WW2 carriers were workhorses just plain wore out.

Wasn't it Missouri who fired the first rounds of the Gulf War?

 

Interesting to note that The Missouri, New Jersey, Iowa and Wisconsin were all still on active duty long after the WWII carriers all had been scrapped.

Apples to oranges. How sure are you of that statement?

Let’s see . . . Essex Class carriers Intrepid, Yorktown, Hornet, and Lexington, to my knowledge, have not been scrapped (and thus not “ALL” have been scrapped); Bennington was not scrapped until 1994 (after Missouri, the last of the Iowa’s in service, was decommissioned) and Oriskany was not disposed of until May 2006 when sunk to form an artificial reef off Pensacola.

And, just for the apples to oranges record . . .

Longest total commissioned service of any of the Iowa Class battleships was 21.68 years (USS New Jersey); the longest serving Essex Class carrier was USS Lexington, with 40.32 years.
Twelve (50%) of the 24 Essex Class carriers had commissioned service lives that exceeded that of New Jersey.
Nineteen (79%) of 24 Essex Class Carriers had commissioned service lives that exceeded the average commissioned service lives (18.14 years) of the Iowa Class battleships by an average of 5.17 years.
Even including war damaged Franklin, with 3.05 years in commission, and Bunker Hill, with 3.63 years in commission, the Essex Class carriers averaged 20.6 years commissioned service compared to the Iowa Class average of 18.14. Leave out Franklin and Bunker Hill and the average commissioned years service for Essex Class carriers increases to 22.17 which exceeds USS New Jersey’s total commissioned service.
Number of Iowa Class battleships commissioned after 11 Jun 44 (the last, USS Missouri) = 0; number of Essex Class carriers commissioned after 11 Jun 44 = 13.
Number of Iowa Class battleships 1st time commissions after World War II = 0; number of Essex Class 1st time commissions after World War II = 7.

And, has been pointed out, the passing of the Essex Class carrier from the scene occurred as they were largely replaced with modern carriers starting with Forrestal Class and even those have been, or are being, replaced. What new battleship classes replaced the Iowa Class battleships as they were taken out of service?



Rich

 

Apples to oranges. How sure are you of that statement?

Let’s see . . . Essex Class carriers Intrepid, Yorktown, Hornet, and Lexington, to my knowledge, have not been scrapped (and thus not “ALL” have been scrapped); Bennington was not scrapped until 1994 (after Missouri, the last of the Iowa’s in service, was decommissioned) and Oriskany was not disposed of until May 2006 when sunk to form an artificial reef off Pensacola.

And, just for the apples to oranges record . . .

Longest total commissioned service of any of the Iowa Class battleships was 21.68 years (USS New Jersey); the longest serving Essex Class carrier was USS Lexington, with 40.32 years.
Twelve (50%) of the 24 Essex Class carriers had commissioned service lives that exceeded that of New Jersey.
Nineteen (79%) of 24 Essex Class Carriers had commissioned service lives that exceeded the average commissioned service lives (18.14 years) of the Iowa Class battleships by an average of 5.17 years.
Even including war damaged Franklin, with 3.05 years in commission, and Bunker Hill, with 3.63 years in commission, the Essex Class carriers averaged 20.6 years commissioned service compared to the Iowa Class average of 18.14. Leave out Franklin and Bunker Hill and the average commissioned years service for Essex Class carriers increases to 22.17 which exceeds USS New Jersey’s total commissioned service.
Number of Iowa Class battleships commissioned after 11 Jun 44 (the last, USS Missouri) = 0; number of Essex Class carriers commissioned after 11 Jun 44 = 13.
Number of Iowa Class battleships 1st time commissions after World War II = 0; number of Essex Class 1st time commissions after World War II = 7.

And, has been pointed out, the passing of the Essex Class carrier from the scene occurred as they were largely replaced with modern carriers starting with Forrestal Class and even those have been, or are being, replaced. What new battleship classes replaced the Iowa Class battleships as they were taken out of service?



Rich

Well Well Well, I smell an Exxley. A Poindexter of Proceedings are we? Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word Scrapped. The fact was that the 4 battleships were in service after the WW2 Carriers were out of service. The BB61 Iowa was moored in Newport RI.

 

Well Well Well, I smell an Exxley. A Poindexter of Proceedings are we? Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word Scrapped. The fact was that the 4 battleships were in service after the WW2 Carriers were out of service. The BB61 Iowa was moored in Newport RI.

No, I would suppose the word “scrapped” should not have used, no more than the word “all” or even the listing all four of the Iowa Class battleships when there was, really, only one that was still in commission after the last Essex Class carrier was decommissioned.

Yes, true (and never denied, I would point out), USS Missouri, the last Iowa class battleship, was still in commission when the last Essex Class carrier, USS Lexington, was decommissioned, 8 November 1991. USS Missouri was undergoing her own decommissioning process at the time and it became an accomplished fact less than five months later on 31 March 1992. Of course, in order to outlast Lexington, Missouri spent some 30.22 years laid up, decommissioned, from 26 February 1955 to 5 October 1985. Thus Missouri, from initial commissioning on 11 June 1944 to final decommissioning in 1992 spent 63.18% of the time in decommissioned status, only being on active commissioned service for 17.62 out of 47.84 years. Feel free to compare that to Lexington’s total of 40.32 years of commissioned service out of 48.68 years (decommissioned between 23 April 1947 and 1 September 1955) total. Lexington’s length of commissioned service, apropos of nothing else, is 2.11 times the commissioned years of USS Iowa, 1.86 times the commissioned years of USS New Jersey, 2.85 times the commissioned years of USS Wisconsin, and, of course, 2.29 times the commissioned years of USS Missouri. And, of course, in total years, commissioned and decommissioned, Lexington exceeds Missouri by ten months.

Need I supply additional comparisons for the other Iowa’s with 28.61, 26.07, and 33.32, respectively, years in decommissioned status in order to meet their exalted status of service into the 1990’s?

Is it not also interesting that all four of the Iowa’s last periods of commissioned service began between 28 December 1982 (USS New Jersey) and 22 October 1988 (USS Wisconsin) after all of the Essex’s, save USS Lexington, had already been decommissioned AND replaced? For the most part, while the Essex’s were serving out their lives, the Iowa’s were tucked away at various yards, mothballed. Dragging them out in the 1980s for an average of 6.1 years additional service was a dog and pony show proving nothing; which is why they were finally decommissioned . . . too expensive and not necessary.

The salient point, the simplest fact of all, which is unavoidable despite all apparent efforts, is that the Essex Class carriers served out their useful lives and were replaced by newer aircraft carriers or LPHs. The Iowa’s served out their generally shorter service lives and were not, and will not be, replaced by newer battleship types, ever. Now, why is that?

And I’ve nothing against folks liking battleships of any class, to each their own, but to drag out an illogical comparison, for no apparent reason other than to show, I guess, how “cool” battleships are while completely ignoring the facts of naval evolution is folly.

Oh, and I am sorry, but I am totally unfamiliar with this term, “smell an Exxley,” can it be explained?

And as for “Poindexter of Proceedings” . . .

Well, there was a John Poindexter, a surface warfare/intell type, of whom I am aware. There is a Mark A Poindexter and a James B Poindexter, both currently serving naval officers. There is Alan G Poindexter, an astronaut. How about Christian H Poindexter, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Constellation Energy Group? Or Joseph Boyd Poindexter, Territorial Governor of Hawaii from 1934 to 1942? Or even the Poindexter of the Felix the Cat cartoons? To whom does this phrase refer, and, if I might ask, to what point?

I’ll presume “Proceedings” refers to “Naval Proceedings,” the journal of the USNI, but I don’t get the connection between any of the above, a naval journal, and this discussion.

Is there some other “Poindexter” or “Proceedings” to which this allusion refers?

Are both of these, apparently clever, squibs, “. . .smell an Exxley” and “Poindexter of Proceedings,” some sort of aspersions . . . a resort to insult? If not, well, no harm, no foul, but if they are, well, lucky me, if I don’t get it then I am not insulted . . . if aspersion or insult were the intent, I guess more strenuous efforts might be in order.

Of course, editorially, I would wonder why such efforts are necessary in the first place. If a poster feels a deep need to toss out insults when someone has a differing opinion, or points out a logical disconnect in their statements, well, it would tend to say more about that poster with such a need than it would about me. Knock yourself out, I'm not in the business of trading insults.

And in the spirit of civil discussion, I confess to a mis-count in my previous . . . only 9 of the Essex Class carriers had commissioned service lives that exceeded that of the longest lived Iowa Class, USS New Jersey, as opposed to the reported 12 and only 17, vice 19, had service lives that exceeded the average Iowa Class service life. My apologies for the error.

R

 

Okay troops, before it start to become a slanging match, could you please ensure that you maintain a dignified discussion. Otherwise my wagging finger will come into action!

 

Could not agree more.

Rich

 

What would you class a Corvette, specifically the Flower Class Corvette.

An uncle of my mothers spent the war years on board HMS Honeysuckle. After reading an account of what it was like to sail on one of those, I have nothing but admiration for ANYONE who sailed on one.

So for family reasons I'd vote for that.