Address: 

See These: Counter Spy | Checking Point Directory | The Charity Connection Directory | The Cool Directory | Proxy.tj | Symbion Links Directory |

• You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia.

  You can still read pages, but cannot edit, change, or create them.

  Editing from your IP address or IP address range has been disabled on all wikis by Pathoschild (meta.wikimedia.org). The reason given was "web proxy, crosswiki abuse".

  To request unblock, visit your talk page and add the text {{unblock|global block — REASON}}. Replace "REASON" with the reason for requesting unblock.

  Additionally, you may appeal the global block at Steward requests/Global.

  The block expires on 11 October 2010 at 05:49.

• Secure login You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia. You can still read pages, but you cannot edit or create them. Editing from 67.159.44.97 has been disabled by Ryulong for the following reason(s): This IP address has been blocked because it is believed to be an open proxy or zombie computer. To prevent abuse, these proxies may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If your ISP has misconfigured its proxy, you can try bypassing it by logging into Wikimedia's secure gateway at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/. For more information about open proxies and what you can do, please see the WikiProject on open proxies. (Multi-RBL lookup • Sandbox test edit) This block has been set to expire: indefinite. Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and contact other editors and administrators by e-mail. Note: Please use the [show] links across from each header to show more information.

  Other useful links: Blocking policy · Username policy · Appealing blocks: policy and guide

  What does this mean?

  What is a block? A block is a measure used to protect Wikipedia from possible improper use or modification in breach of editorial policies. Blocks can apply to a user account, an IP address, or a range of IP addresses that is deemed responsible for or related to problematic activity. You may be an innocent victim of collateral damage, whereby a block of some other activity has accidentally caused your account to be inaccessible. The reason for your block may be found above. Most common causes Your IP address matches that used by another blocked account. Ask for further information and/or request unblocking. Your account or a connected IP has been used in a problematic way, or your username was unsuitable and you need to choose another. The reason should be in the box above.

  What do I do now?

  If instructions are given above in the block message, follow them. If you have never edited Wikipedia before and/or do not have an account, consider creating one. If you wish to appeal the block, or you believe you have been blocked by mistake, please see the following section. Appealing The current block will automatically expire indefinite. You have many routes to appeal the block or its duration. Firstly, if you are a registered user and have a valid e-mail address confirmed, you can contact Ryulong via e-mail. This feature can be removed if abused. Alternatively, you may appeal the block by requesting that another administrator review the block. To do so, add {{unblock|your reason here}} to the bottom of your user talk page to request unblocking. You must state a reason for this, and the block can then be discussed. Our guide to appealing blocks might help you in composing a persuasive unblock request. If 67.159.44.97 is not blocked, your IP address (67.159.44.97) or range may have been blocked. Please check here. If this is the case, please copy and paste the following text to the bottom of your user talk page. {{unblock-ip|1=67.159.44.97|2=<nowiki>{{blocked proxy}}</nowiki>|3=Ryulong}} Please note: While this block may be upsetting or unexpected, abuse of appeal processes, repeatedly using the unblock template when denied, personal attacks, or impolite conduct may lead to the removal of your ability to edit your talk page.

  Additional information

  Online Chat You may also use the freenode IRC network to discuss your block with administrators available at the time. If you have an IRC client, the unblock channel can be found at #wikipedia-en-unblock. If you don't have an IRC client, you can access the channel via a browser-based application. E-mailing us Due to the high volume of e-mail we receive, you are more likely to get a quick response if you try requesting an unblock via your talk page first. Before you e-mail us, please make sure that your situation has not already been addressed by the above sections. Your talk page may also contain further details related to your block or IP address, and we strongly advise that you review it before contacting us. When sending us an e-mail, please copy, paste, and fill out one of these forms. To request unblocking: IP address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.159.44.97 Blocking admin: Ryulong Block reason: {{blocked proxy}} Block originally applied to: 67.159.44.97 Block ID number: 740216 Your account name (if you have one): An explanation of why your block is unfair: To request an account: IP address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.159.44.97 Blocking admin: Ryulong Block reason: {{blocked proxy}} Block originally applied to: 67.159.44.97 Block ID number: 740216 Preferred account name: Note: your preferred username must not be listed as already taken here, and must comply with our username policy. Even though e-mails sent to the unblock-en-l mailing list are viewable only by administrators and trusted volunteers, under no circumstances should you e-mail us your account's password or reveal it to anyone else even if asked to. When requesting an account, a temporary password will be generated and e-mailed to you. Please change the password on your new account as soon as possible. You may contact unblock-en-l at unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org. IMPORTANT: Please do not e-mail us without providing the information requested above. We will always require that information to help you. This mailing list exists for the purpose of reviewing blocks only—any request to make edits to articles on your behalf will be disregarded. Correspondence containing legal threats, personal attacks or rudeness is likely to be ignored and may result in the extension of pre-existing blocks.

{{Other uses}} [[Image:BB61 USS Iowa BB61 broadside USN.jpg|thumb|The firepower of a battleship demonstrated by {{USS|Iowa|BB-61|6}} (ca. 1984)]] A '''battleship''' is a large [[armour|armored]] [[warship]] with a main [[artillery battery|battery]] consisting of heavy [[caliber]] [[gun]]s. Battleships were larger, better armed and armored than [[cruiser]]s and [[destroyer]]s. As the largest armed ships in a fleet, battleships were used to attain [[command of the sea]] and represented the apex of a nation's naval power from the 19th century up until [[World War II]]. With the rise of air power and guided missiles, large guns were no longer deemed necessary to establish naval superiority, and as a result there are no battleships in active service today. Battleship design evolved to incorporate and adapt technological advances to maintain an edge. The word ''battleship'' was coined around 1794 and is a contraction of the phrase ''[[ship of the line|line-of-'''battle ship''']],'' the dominant wooden warship during the [[Age of Sail]].<ref name="OED">"battleship" The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989. OED Online. Oxford University Press. 4 April 2000</ref> The term came into formal use in the late 1880s to describe a type of [[ironclad warship]],<ref name = "Stoll">Stoll, J. ''Steaming in the Dark?'', Journal of Conflict Resolution Vol. 36 No. 2, June 1992.</ref> now referred to as [[pre-dreadnought battleship]]s. In 1906, the commissioning of {{HMS|Dreadnought|1906|6}} heralded a revolution in battleship design. Following battleship designs that were influenced by HMS ''Dreadnought'' were referred to as "[[dreadnought]]s". Battleships were a symbol of [[navy|naval]] dominance and national might, and for decades the battleship was a major factor in both [[diplomacy]] and [[military strategy]].<ref name = "Sondhaus">Sondhaus, L. ''Naval Warfare 1815–1914'', ISBN 0-415-21478-5.</ref> The global [[arms race]] in battleship construction beginning in the late 19th century and exacerbated by ''Dreadnought'' was one of the causes of [[World War I]], which saw a clash of large battle fleets at the [[Battle of Jutland]]. The [[Treaty for the Limitation of Naval Armament|Naval Treaties]] of the 1920s and 1930s limited the number of battleships but did not end the evolution of design. Both the [[Allies of World War II|Allies]] and the [[Axis Powers]] deployed battleships of old construction and new during World War II. The value of the battleship has been questioned, even during the period of their prominence.<ref>{{cite book |author=O'Connell, Robert J. |title=Sacred vessels: the cult of the battleship and the rise of the U. S. Navy |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford [Oxfordshire] |year=1993 |pages= |isbn=0-19-508006-8 |oclc= |doi= |accessdate=}}</ref> The [[Battle of Tsushima]] (1905) was the only decisive clash between steel battleship fleets, and apart from the indecisive [[Battle of Jutland]] (1916), there were few great battleship clashes. Despite their great firepower and protection, battleships were increasingly vulnerable to much smaller, cheaper ordnance and craft: initially the [[torpedo]] and the [[naval mine]], and later aircraft and the [[guided missile]].<ref name = "Lenton">Lenton, H. T.: ''Krigsfartyg efter 1860''</ref> The growing range of naval engagements led to the [[aircraft carrier]] replacing the battleship as the leading [[capital ship]] during World War II, with the last battleship to be launched being {{HMS|Vanguard|23|6}} in 1944. Battleships were retained by the [[United States Navy]] into the [[Cold War]] only for [[fire support]] purposes. The last battleships were removed from the U.S. [[Naval Vessel Register]] in March 2006.<ref>[http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/BB64.htm "Battleship"] in ''Naval Vessel Register''. United States Navy. Retrieved 24 May 2008.</ref> ==Ships of the line== {{Main|Ship of the line}} A ship of the line is a large, unarmored [[wood]]en sailing ship on which was mounted a [[artillery battery|battery]] of up to 120 [[smoothbore]] [[gun]]s and [[carronade]]s. The ship of the line was a gradual evolution of a basic design that dates back to the 15th century, and, apart from growing in size, it changed little between the adoption of [[line of battle]] tactics in the early 17th century and the end of the sailing battleship's heyday in the 1830s. From 1794, the alternative term 'line of battle ship' was contracted (informally at first) to 'battle ship' or 'battleship'.<ref name = "OED" /> [[Image:TheNapoleonAtToulonIn1852ByLauvergne.jpg|thumb|''[[French ship Napoléon (1850)|Le Napoléon]]'' (1850), the first steam battleship]] The sheer number of guns fired [[broadside]] meant that a sailing battleship could wreck any wooden vessel, smashing its [[hull (watercraft)|hull]] and [[mast (sailing)|masts]] and killing its crew. However, the effective range of the guns was as little as a few hundred yards, so the battle tactics of sailing ships depended in part on the wind. The first major change to the ship of the line concept was the introduction of [[steam power]] as an auxiliary [[marine propulsion|propulsion system]]. Steam power was gradually introduced to the navy in the first half of the 19th century, initially for small craft and later for [[frigate]]s. The [[French Navy]] introduced steam to the line of battle with the 90-gun [[French ship Napoléon (1850)|''Le Napoléon'']] in 1850<ref>"Napoleon (90 guns), the first purpose-designed screw line of battleships", ''Steam, Steel and Shellfire'', Conway's History of the Ship (p. 39)</ref>—the first true steam battleship.<ref>''"Hastened to completion Le Napoleon was launched on 16 May 1850, to become the world's first true steam battleship"'', ''Steam, Steel and Shellfire'', Conway's History of the Ship (p39)</ref> ''Napoleon'' was armed as a conventional ship-of-the-line, but her steam engines could give her a speed of {{convert|12|kn|km/h|0}}, regardless of the wind conditions: a potentially decisive advantage in a naval engagement. The introduction of steam accelerated the growth in size of battleships. France and the [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|United Kingdom]] were the only countries to develop [[List of steam powered ships of the line|fleets of wooden steam screw battleships]], although several other navies operated small numbers of screw battleships, including [[Russian Empire|Russia]] (9), [[Ottoman Empire|Turkey]] (3), [[Sweden]] (2), [[Kingdom of Naples|Naples]] (1), [[Denmark]] (1) and [[Austrian Empire|Austria]] (1).<ref name=LambertBIT>Lambert, Andrew, ''Battleships in Transition'', pub Conway1984, ISBN0-85177315-X pages 144-147.<br /> In addition, the Navy of the North Germany Confederacy (which included Prussia) bought [[HMS Renown (1857)|HMS ''Renown'']] from Britain in 1870 for use as a gunnery training ship.</ref><ref name="Sondhaus"/> ==Ironclads== {{Main|Ironclad warship}} [[Image:LaGloirePhotograph.jpg|thumb|The French [[French battleship La Gloire|''La Gloire'']] (1859), the first ocean–going [[ironclad warship]]]] The adoption of steam power was only one of a number of technological advances which revolutionized warship design in the 19th century. The ship of the line was overtaken by the [[ironclad warship|ironclad]]: powered by steam, protected by metal armor, and armed with guns firing high-explosive [[shell (projectile)|shells]]. ===Explosive shells=== Guns which fired explosive or incendiary shells were a major threat to wooden ships, and these weapons quickly became widespread after the introduction of 8&nbsp;inch shell guns as part of the standard armament of French and American line-of-battle ships in 1841.<ref>"The canon-obusier [shell gun] originally constructed by [[Henri-Joseph Paixhans|Colonel Paixhans]] for the French Naval Service... was subsequently designated the canon-obusier of 80, No 1 of 1841... the diameter of the bore is 22 centimetres (8.65 inches)." See: [[Howard Douglas|Douglas, Sir Howard]], ''A Treatise on Naval Gunnery 1855'', 4th Edition 1855, republished Conway Maritime Press, 1982, ISBN 0-85177-275-7 page 201.<br />The British undertook trials with shell guns trials at HMS ''Excellent'' starting in 1832. ''A Treatise on Naval Gunnery 1855'' page 198.<br />For the US introduction of 8-inch shell guns into the armament of line-of-battle ships in 1841, see: Tucker, Spencer, ''Arming the Fleet, US Navy Ordnance in the Muzzle-Loading Era'', pub US Naval Institute, 1989,ISBN 0-87021-007-6 page 149.</ref> In the [[Crimean War]], six line-of-battle ships and two frigates of the Russian [[Black Sea Fleet]] destroyed seven Turkish frigates and three corvettes with explosive shells at the [[Battle of Sinop]] in 1853.<ref>Lambert, Andrew D, ''The Crimean War, British Grand Strategy Against Russia, 1853-56'', pub Manchester University Press, 1990, ISBN 0-7190-3564-3, pages 60-61.</ref> Later in the war, French ironclad floating batteries used similar weapons against the defenses at the [[Battle of Kinburn (1855)|Battle of Kinburn]].<ref name = "Lambert">Lambert, Andrew: ''Battleships in Transition'', pp. 92–96</ref> Nevertheless wooden-hulled ships stood up comparatively well to shells, as shown in the 1866 [[Battle of Lissa (1866)|Battle of Lissa]], where the modern Austrian steam two-decker ''Kaiser'' ranged across a confused battlefield, rammed an [[Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946)|Italian]] ironclad and took 80 hits from Italian ironclads,<ref>Clowes, William Laird, ''Four Modern Naval Campaigns'', pub Unit Library, 1902, republished Cornmarket Press, 1970, ISBN 0-7191-2020-9 page 68.</ref> many of which were shells,<ref>Clowes, William Laird, ''Four Modern Naval Campaigns''pages 54-55 and 63.</ref> but including at least one 300&nbsp;[[pound (mass)|pound]] shot at point blank range. Despite losing her [[bowsprit]] and her foremast, and being set on fire, she was ready for action again the very next day.<ref name="Wilson">Wilson, H. W.: ''Ironclads in Action - Vol 1'', London, 1898, p. 240</ref> ===Iron armor and construction=== [[Image:Hms warrior.jpg|thumb|{{HMS|Warrior|1860|6}} (1860), the Royal Navy's first ocean–going iron hulled warship.]] The development of high-explosive shells made the use of iron [[armour|armor]] plate on warships necessary. In 1859 [[France]] launched [[French battleship La Gloire|''La Gloire'']], the first ocean-going ironclad warship. She had the profile of a ship of the line, cut to one deck due to weight considerations. Although made of wood and reliant on sail for most journeys, ''La Gloire'' was fitted with a propeller, and her wooden hull was protected by a layer of thick iron armor.<ref>Gibbons, Tony: ''The Complete Encyclopedia of Battleships'', pp. 28–29</ref> ''Gloire'' prompted further innovation from the [[Royal Navy]], anxious to prevent France from gaining a technological lead. The superior armored frigate [[HMS Warrior (1860)|''Warrior'']] followed ''La Gloire'' by only fourteen months, and both nations embarked on a program of building new ironclads and converting existing screw ships of the line to armored frigates.<ref>Gibbons, pp. 30–31</ref> Within two years, Italy, Austria, [[Spanish Empire|Spain]] and Russia had all ordered ironclad warships, and by the time of the famous clash of the [[USS Monitor|USS ''Monitor'']] and the [[CSS Virginia|CSS ''Virginia'']] at the [[Battle of Hampton Roads]] at least eight navies possessed ironclad ships.<ref name="Sondhaus"/> [[Image:LeRedoutablePhoto.jpg|thumb|The French [[French battleship Redoutable (1876)|''Redoutable'']] (1876), the first battleship to use steel as the main building material<ref>Gibbons, p. 93</ref>]] Navies experimented with the positioning of guns, in [[Gun turret|turrets]] (like the USS ''Monitor''), [[central battery ship|central-batteries]] or [[barbette]]s, or with the [[naval ram|ram]] as the principal weapon. As steam technology developed, masts were gradually removed from battleship designs. By the mid-1870s [[steel]] was used as a construction material alongside iron and wood. The French Navy's [[French battleship Redoutable (1876)|''Redoutable'']], laid down in 1873 and launched in 1876, was a central [[artillery battery|battery]] and barbette warship which became the first battleship in the world to use steel as the principal building material.<ref>Conway Marine, "Steam, Steel and Shellfire" (p. 96)</ref> ===Pre-dreadnought battleship=== {{Main|Pre-dreadnought battleship}} [[File:USS Texas2.jpg|thumb|Pre-''Dreadnought'' battleship [[USS Texas (1892)|USS ''Texas'']], built in 1892, was the first battleship of the U.S. Navy. [[Photochrom]] print c. 1898.]] [[Image:HMS Agamemnon (1908) profile drawing.png|thumb|Diagram of {{HMS|Agamemnon|1906|6}} (1908), a typical late pre-dreadnought battleship]] The term "battleship" was officially adopted by the Royal Navy in the re-classification of 1892. By the 1890s, there was an increasing similarity between battleship designs, and the type now known as the 'pre-dreadnought battleship' emerged. These were heavily armored ships, mounting a mixed battery of guns in turrets, and without sails. The typical first-class battleship of the pre-dreadnought era displaced 15,000 to 17,000&nbsp;[[ton]]s, had a speed of {{convert|16|kn|km/h|0}}, and an armament of four {{convert|12|in|mm|0|sing=on}} guns in two turrets fore and aft with a mixed-caliber secondary battery amidships around the superstructure.<ref name = "Stoll"/> An early design with superficial similarity to the pre-dreadnought is the British [[Devastation class battleship|''Devastation''-class]] of 1871.<ref>Gibbons, Tony: ''The Complete Encyclopedia of Battleships'', p. 101</ref> However, it was not until the 1890s that the widespread adoption of steel construction and hardened steel armor meant that a turret-ship could combine heavy armament and protection with high speed and good sea keeping.{{Citation needed|date=March 2008}} The slow-firing {{convert|12|in|mm|0|sing=on}} main guns were the principal weapons for battleship-to-battleship combat. The intermediate and secondary batteries had two roles. Against major ships, it was thought a 'hail of fire' from quick-firing secondary weapons could distract enemy gun crews by inflicting damage to the superstructure, and they would be more effective against smaller ships such as [[cruiser]]s. Smaller guns (12-pounders and smaller) were reserved for protecting the battleship against the threat of torpedo attack from [[destroyer]]s and [[torpedo boat]]s.<ref>War at Sea in the Ironclad Age, Richard Hill, ISBN 0-304-35273-X.</ref> The beginning of the pre-dreadnought era coincided with Britain reasserting her naval dominance. For many years previously, Britain had taken naval supremacy for granted. Expensive naval projects were criticised by political leaders of all inclinations.<ref name = "Sondhaus"/> However, in 1888 a war scare with France and the build-up of the Russian navy gave added impetus to naval construction, and the British Naval Defence Act of 1889 laid down a new fleet including eight new battleships. The principle that Britain's navy should be more powerful than the two next most powerful fleets combined was established. This policy was designed to deter France and Russia from building more battleships, but both nations nevertheless expanded their fleets with more and better pre-dreadnoughts in the 1890s.<ref name = "Sondhaus"/> In the last years of the 19th century and the first years of the 20th, the escalation in the building of battleships became an [[arms race]] between Britain and [[German Empire|Germany]]. The German naval laws of 1890 and 1898 authorised a fleet of 38 battleships, a vital threat to the balance of naval power.<ref name = "Sondhaus"/> Britain answered with further shipbuilding, but by the end of the pre-dreadnought era, British supremacy at sea had markedly weakened. In 1883, the United Kingdom had 38 battleships, twice as many as France and almost as many as the rest of the world put together. By 1897, Britain's lead was far smaller due to competition from France, Germany, and Russia, as well as the development of pre-dreadnought fleets in Italy, the [[United States]] and [[Empire of Japan|Japan]].<ref name=k209>Kennedy, p. 209</ref> Turkey, Spain, Sweden, Denmark, [[Norway]], the [[Netherlands]], [[Chile]] and [[Brazil]] all had second-rate fleets led by [[armored cruiser]]s, [[coastal defence ship]]s or [[monitor (warship)|monitors]].<ref>Preston, Anthony: ''Jane's Fighting Ships of World War II''</ref> Pre-dreadnoughts continued the technical innovations of the ironclad. Turrets, armor plate, and [[steam engine]]s were all improved over the years, and [[torpedo]] tubes were introduced. A small number of designs, including the American [[Kearsarge class battleship|''Kearsarge'']] and [[Virginia class battleship|''Virginia'']] classes, experimented with all or part of the 8-inch intermediate battery superimposed over the 12-inch primary. Results were poor: recoil factors and blast effects resulted in the 8-inch battery being completely unusable, and the inability to train the primary and intermediate armaments on different targets led to significant tactical limitations. Even though such innovative designs saved weight (a key reason for their inception), they proved too cumbersome in practice.<ref>Preston, Anthony. (1972) ''Battleships of World War I'', New York City: Galahad Books</ref> ==Dreadnought era== {{See also|Dreadnought}} In 1906, the British [[Royal Navy]] launched the revolutionary {{HMS|Dreadnought|1906|6}}. Created as a result of pressure from Admiral [[John Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher|Sir John ("Jackie") Fisher]], HMS ''Dreadnought'' made existing battleships obsolete. Combining an "all-big-gun" armament of ten 12-inch (305&nbsp;mm) guns with unprecedented speed and protection, she prompted navies worldwide to re-evaluate their battleship building programmes. While the Japanese had laid down an all-big-gun battleship, ''Satsuma'' in 1904,<ref>Gibbons, p. 168</ref> and the concept of an all-big-gun ship had been in circulation for several years, it had yet to be validated in combat. ''Dreadnought'' sparked a new [[arms race]], principally between Britain and Germany but reflected worldwide, as the new class of warships became a crucial element of national power. Technical development continued rapidly through the dreadnought era, with step changes in armament, armor and propulsion. Ten years after ''Dreadnought''{{'}}s commissioning, much more powerful ships, the super-dreadnoughts, were being built. ===Origin=== [[Image:Vittoriocuniberti001.jpg|thumb|upright|Vittorio Cuniberti]] In the first years of the 20th century, several navies worldwide experimented with the idea of a new type of battleship with a uniform armament of very heavy guns. Admiral [[Vittorio Cuniberti]], the Italian Navy's chief naval architect, articulated the concept of an all-big-gun battleship in 1903. When the ''[[Regia Marina]]'' did not pursue his ideas, Cuniberti wrote an article in [[Jane's Fighting Ships|''Jane's'']] proposing an "ideal" future British battleship, a large armored warship of 17,000&nbsp;tons, armed solely with a single calibre main battery (twelve 12-inch {305&nbsp;mm} guns), carrying {{convert|300|mm|in|0|sing=on}} [[belt armor]], and capable of 24 [[knot (unit)|knots]] (44&nbsp;km/h).<ref>Cuniberti, Vittorio, "An Ideal Battleship for the British Fleet", ''All The World's Fighting Ships'', 1903, pp. 407–409.</ref> The [[Russo-Japanese War]] provided operational experience to validate the 'all-big-gun' concept. At the [[Battle of the Yellow Sea|Yellow Sea]] and [[Battle of Tsushima|Tsushima]], pre-dreadnoughts exchanged volleys at ranges of 7,600–12,000 yd (7 to 11&nbsp;km), beyond the range of the secondary batteries. It is often held that these engagements demonstrated the importance of the {{convert|12|in|mm|0|sing=on}} gun over its smaller counterparts, though some historians take the view secondary batteries were just as important as the larger weapons.<ref name="Sondhaus"/> In Japan, the two battleships of the 1903-4 Programme were the first to be laid down as all-big-gun designs, with eight 12-inch guns. However, the design had armor which was considered too thin, demanding a substantial redesign.<ref>Breyer, ''Battleships and Battlecruisers of the World'', p. 331.</ref> The financial pressures of the Russo-Japanese War and the short supply of 12-inch guns which had to be imported from Britain meant these ships were completed with a mixed 10- and 12-inch armament. The 1903-4 design also retained traditional triple-expansion steam engines.<ref>Evans and Peattie, ''Kaigun'', p. 159.</ref> [[Image:IJN Satsuma.jpg|thumb|left|A preliminary design for the [[Imperial Japanese Navy]]'s {{ship|Japanese battleship|Satsuma||2}} was an "all-big-gun" design.]] As early as 1904, Jackie Fisher had been convinced of the need for fast, powerful ships with an all-big-gun armament. If Tsushima influenced his thinking, it was to persuade him of the need to standardise on {{convert|12|in|mm|0|sing=on}} guns.<ref name="Sondhaus"/> Fisher's concerns were [[submarine]]s and [[destroyer]]s equipped with torpedoes, then threatening to outrange battleship guns, making speed imperative for [[capital ship]]s.<ref name="Sondhaus"/> Fisher's preferred option was his brainchild, the [[battlecruiser]]: lightly armored but heavily armed with eight 12-inch guns and propelled to {{convert|25|kn|km/h|0}} by [[steam turbine]]s.<ref>{{cite book |title=British Battlecruisers 1914–18 |last=Burr |first=Lawrence |year=2006 |publisher=Osprey Publishing |location=Oxford |isbn=1846030080 |pages=4–7}}</ref> It was to prove this revolutionary technology that ''Dreadnought'' was designed in January 1905, laid down in October 1905 and sped to completion by 1906. She carried ten 12&nbsp;inch guns, had an 11-inch armor belt, and was the first large ship powered by turbines. She mounted her guns in five turrets; three on the centerline (one forward, two aft) and two on the [[Gun turret|wings]], giving her at her launch twice the [[broadside]] of anything else afloat. She retained a number of 12-pound (3-inch, 76&nbsp;mm) [[British ordnance terms#QF|quick-firing]] guns for use against destroyers and torpedo-boats. Her armor was heavy enough for her to go head-to-head with any other ship afloat in a gun battle, and conceivably win.<ref>Gibbons, pp. 170–171.</ref> [[Image:HMS Dreadnought (1911) profile drawing.png|thumb|left|{{HMS|Dreadnought|1906|6}} (1906)|left]] ''Dreadnought'' was to have been followed by three [[Invincible class battlecruiser|''Invincible'']]-class [[battlecruiser]]s, their construction delayed to allow lessons from ''Dreadnought'' to be used in their design. While Fisher may have intended ''Dreadnought'' to be the last Royal Navy battleship,<ref name="Sondhaus"/> the design was so successful he found little support for his plan to switch to a battlecruiser navy. Although there were some problems with the ship (the wing turrets had limited arcs of fire and strained the hull when firing a full broadside, and the top of the thickest armor belt lay below the waterline at full load), the Royal Navy promptly commissioned another six ships to a similar design in the [[Bellerophon class battleship|''Bellerophon'']] and [[St. Vincent class battleship|''St Vincent'']] classes. An American design, {{USS|South Carolina|BB-26|2}}, authorized in 1905 and laid down in December 1906, was another of the first dreadnoughts, but she and her sister, {{USS|Michigan|BB-27|2}}, were not launched until 1908. Both used triple-expansion engines and had a superior layout of the main battery, dispensing with ''Dreadnought'''s wing turrets. They thus retained the same broadside, despite having two fewer guns. ===Arms race=== In 1897, before the revolution in design brought about by ''HMS Dreadnought'', the Royal Navy had 62 battleships in commission or building, a lead of 26 over France and 50 over Germany.<ref name=k209/> In 1906, the Royal Navy owned the field with ''Dreadnought''. The new class of ship prompted an arms race with major strategic consequences. Major naval powers raced to build their own dreadnoughts. Possession of modern battleships was not only vital to naval power, but also, as with nuclear weapons today, represented a nation's standing in the world.<ref name = "Sondhaus"/> Germany, France, Russia, Italy, Austria, and the United States all began dreadnought programmes; and second-rank powers including Turkey, [[Argentina]], Brazil, and Chile commissioned dreadnoughts to be built in British and American yards.<ref>Keegan, p. 281</ref> ==World War I== {{See also|Naval warfare of World War I}} The First World War was an anticlimax for the great dreadnought fleets. There was no decisive clash of modern battlefleets to compare with the [[Battle of Tsushima]]. The role of battleships was marginal to the great land struggle in France and Russia; and it was equally marginal to the [[First Battle of the Atlantic]], the battle between [[U-boat|German submarines]] and British merchant shipping. By virtue of geography, the Royal Navy could keep the German [[High Seas Fleet]] bottled up in the [[North Sea]]: only narrow channels led to the Atlantic Ocean and these were guarded by British forces.<ref>{{cite book|last=Gilbert|first=Adrian|title=The encyclopedia of warfare: from earliest time to the present day, Part 25|publisher=Taylor & Francis|year=2000|pages=224|isbn=9781579582166|url=http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MZoO7SIwMVIC&pg=PA224&dq=%22world+war+i%22+%22high+seas+fleet%22+%22royal+navy%22+%22north+sea%22&lr=&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=%22world%20war%20i%22%20%22high%20seas%20fleet%22%20%22royal%20navy%22%20%22north%20sea%22&f=false}}</ref> Both sides were aware that, because of the greater number of British dreadnoughts, a full fleet engagement would be likely to result in a British victory. The German strategy was therefore to try to provoke an engagement on their terms: either to induce a part of the Grand Fleet to enter battle alone, or to fight a pitched battle near the German coastline, where friendly minefields, torpedo-boats and submarines could be used to even the odds.<ref>Keegan, p. 289.</ref> [[Image:Hochseeflotte 1.jpg|thumb|left|German [[High Seas Fleet]] during [[World War I]]]] The first two years of war saw conflict in the North Sea limited to skirmishes by [[battlecruiser]]s at the [[Battle of Heligoland Bight]] and [[Battle of Dogger Bank (1915)|Battle of Dogger Bank]] and raids on the English coast. On May 31, 1916, a further attempt to draw British ships into battle on German terms resulted in a clash of the battlefleets in the [[Battle of Jutland]].<ref>Ireland, Bernard: ''Jane's War At Sea'', pp. 88–95.</ref> The German fleet withdrew to port at its earliest opportunity after two short encounters with the British fleet. This reinforced German determination never to engage in a fleet to fleet battle.<ref>Padfield 1972, p. 240.</ref> In the other naval theatres there were no decisive pitched battles. In the [[Black Sea]], engagement between [[Russian Empire|Russian]] and [[Ottoman Empire|Turkish]] battleships was restricted to skirmishes. In the [[Baltic Sea|Baltic]], action was largely limited to the raiding of convoys, and the laying of defensive minefields; the only significant clash of battleship squadrons there was the [[Battle of Moon Sound]] at which one Russian pre-dreadnought was lost. The [[Adriatic Sea|Adriatic]] was in a sense the mirror of the North Sea: the [[Austria–Hungary|Austro-Hungarian]] dreadnought fleet remained bottled up by the British and French blockade. And in the [[Mediterranean Sea|Mediterranean]], the most important use of battleships was in support of the amphibious assault on [[Gallipoli Campaign|Gallipoli]].<ref>[[Andrew Marr's The Making of Modern Britain]] Episode 3.</ref> The war illustrated the vulnerability of battleships to cheaper weapons. In September 1914, the potential threat posed to [[capital ship]]s by German U-boats was confirmed by successful attacks on British cruisers, including the sinking of three British [[armored cruiser]]s by the German submarine [[SM U-9|U-9]] in less than an hour. Sea mines proved a threat the next month, when the recently commissioned British super-dreadnought [[HMS Audacious (1912)|''Audacious'']] struck a mine and sank. By the end of October, the British had changed their strategy and tactics in the North Sea to reduce the risk of U-boat attack.<ref>Massie, Robert. ''Castles of Steel'', London, 2005. pp. 127–145</ref> While the [[Battle of Jutland]] was among the last major battleship engagements in history ([[Battle of Tsushima|Tsushima]], [[Battle of Surigao Strait]]), the German plan for the battle relied on U-boat attacks on the British fleet; and the escape of the German fleet from the superior British firepower was effected by the German cruisers and destroyers closing on British battleships, causing them to turn away to avoid the threat of torpedo attack.<ref>Massie, Robert. ''Castles of Steel'', London, 2005. pp. 675</ref> Further near-misses from submarine attacks on battleships and casualties amongst cruisers led to growing concern in the Royal Navy about the vulnerability of battleships. By October 1916, the Royal Navy instructed the Grand Fleet not to go south of the [[Farne Islands]] unless adequately protected by destroyers.{{Citation needed|date=January 2008}} The German High Seas Fleet, for their part, were determined not to engage the British without the assistance of submarines; and since the submarines were needed more for raiding commercial traffic, the fleet stayed in port for the remainder of the war.<ref>Kennedy, pp. 247&ndash;249</ref> Other theatres equally showed the role of small craft in damaging or destroying dreadnoughts. The two Austrian dreadnoughts lost in 1918 were the casualties of torpedo boats and of [[frogman|frogmen]]. The [[Allies of World War I|Allied]] capital ships lost in Gallipoli were sunk by mines and torpedo,<ref>{{HMS|Majestic|1895|6}} and {{HMS|Triumph|1903|6}} were torpedoed by ''U.21''; {{HMS|Goliath|1898|6}} was torpedoed by the Turkish torpedo boat ''Muavenet''.</ref> while a Turkish pre-dreadnought was caught in the [[Dardanelles]] by a British submarine.<ref>{{cite book |title= Submarines at War 1914-18 |last= Compton-Hall |first= Richard|year= 2004 |publisher= Periscope Publishing Ltd |isbn=1904381219 |pages=155–162}}</ref> ==Inter-war period== For many years, [[Weimar Republic|Germany]] simply had no battleships. The [[Armistice with Germany (Compiègne)|Armistice with Germany]] required that most of the High Seas Fleet be disarmed and interned in a neutral port; largely because no neutral port could be found, the ships remained in British custody in [[Scapa Flow]], [[Scotland]]. The [[Treaty of Versailles]] specified that the ships should be handed over to the British. Instead, most of them were [[scuttling|scuttled]] by their German crews on 21 June 1919 just before the signature of the peace treaty. The treaty also limited the German Navy, and prevented Germany from building or possessing any [[capital ship]]s.<ref>Ireland, Bernard: ''Jane's War At Sea'', p. 118</ref> [[Image:HMS Nelson (1931) profile drawing.png|thumb|left|Profile drawing of [[HMS Nelson (28)|HMS ''Nelson'']] commissioned 1927]] The inter-war period saw the battleship subjected to strict international limitations to prevent a costly arms race breaking out.<ref>Friedman, Norman, ''U.S. Battleships'', pp. 181&ndash;2</ref> While the victors were not limited by the Treaty of Versailles, many of the major naval powers were crippled after the war. Faced with the prospect of a naval arms race against Great Britain and Japan, which would in turn have led to a possible Pacific war, the United States was keen to conclude the [[Washington Naval Treaty]] of 1922. This treaty limited the number and size of battleships that each major nation could possess, and required Britain to accept parity with the U.S. and to abandon the British alliance with Japan.<ref>Kennedy, p. 277</ref> The Washington treaty was followed by a series of other naval treaties, including the [[Geneva Naval Conference|First Geneva Naval Conference]] (1927), the [[London Naval Treaty|First London Naval Treaty]] (1930), the [[Second Geneva Naval Conference]] (1932), and finally the [[Second London Naval Treaty]] (1936), which all set limits on major warships. These treaties became effectively obsolete on 1 September 1939 at the beginning of [[World War II]], but the ship classifications that had been agreed upon still apply.<ref>Ireland, Bernard: ''Jane's War At Sea'', pp. 124–126, 139–142</ref> The treaty limitations meant that fewer new battleships were launched from 1919–1939 than from 1905–1914. The treaties also inhibited development by putting maximum limits on the weights of ships. Designs like the projected British [[N3 class battleship]], the first American [[South Dakota class battleship (1920)|''South Dakota''-class]], and the Japanese [[Kii class battleship|''Kii''-class]]—all of which continued the trend to larger ships with bigger guns and thicker armor—never got off the drawing board. Those designs which were commissioned during this period were referred to as [[treaty battleship]]s.<ref>Sumrall, Robert: ''The Battleship and Battlecruiser'', in Gardiner, R: ''The Eclipse of the Big Gun''. Conway Maritime, London. ISBN 0-85177-607-8. pp. 25-28</ref> ===Rise of air power=== [[Image:Ostfriesland bombed by Mitchells team p19.jpg|thumb|Bombing tests which sank [[SMS Ostfriesland|SMS ''Ostfriesland'']] (1909), September, 1921]] As early as 1914, the British Admiral [[Percy Scott]] predicted that battleships would soon be made irrelevant by [[military aviation|aeroplanes]].<ref>Kennedy, p. 199</ref> By the end of World War I, aeroplanes had successfully adopted the torpedo as a weapon.<ref>From the ''Guinness Book of Air Facts and Feats ''(3rd edition, 1977): "The first air attack using a torpedo dropped by an aeroplane was carried out by Flight Commander Charles H. K. Edmonds, flying a [[Short Type 184|Short 184]] seaplane from HMS ''Ben-My-Chree'' on 12 August 1915, against a 5,000 ton (5,080 tonne) Turkish supply ship in the [[Sea of Marmara]]. Although the enemy ship was hit and sunk, the captain of a British submarine claimed to have fired a torpedo simultaneously and sunk the ship. It was further stated that the British submarine E14 had attacked and immobilised the ship four days earlier. However, on 17 August 1915, another Turkish ship was sunk by a torpedo of whose origin there can be no doubt. On this occasion Flight Commander C. H. Edmonds, flying a Short 184, torpedoed a Turkish steamer a few miles north of the Dardanelles. His formation colleague, Flight Lieutenant G. B. Dacre, was forced to land on the water owing to engine trouble but, seeing an enemy tug close by, taxied up to it and released his torpedo. The tug blew up and sank. Thereafter, Dacre was able to take off and return to the ''Ben-My-Chree''</ref> A proposed attack on the German fleet at anchor in 1918 using the [[Sopwith Cuckoo]] carrier-borne torpedo-bomber was considered and rejected—but it was not long before such a technique was adopted.{{Citation needed|date=March 2008}} In the 1920s, General [[Billy Mitchell]] of the [[United States Army Air Corps]], believing that air forces had rendered navies around the world obsolete, testified in front of Congress that "1,000 bombardment airplanes can be built and operated for about the price of one battleship" and that a squadron of these bombers could sink a battleship, making for more efficient use of government funds.<ref>[[Walter J. Boyne|Boyne, Walter J.]] [http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/1996/June%201996/0696billy.aspx "The Spirit of Billy Mitchell"]. Air Force Magazine, June 1996.</ref> This infuriated the U.S. Navy, but Mitchell was nevertheless allowed to conduct a careful series of bombing tests alongside Navy and [[United States Marine Corps|Marine]] bombers. In 1921, he bombed and sank numerous ships, including the "unsinkable" German World War I battleship [[SMS Ostfriesland|''Ostfriesland'']] and the American pre-dreadnought {{USS|Alabama|BB-8|2}}.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/navybomb2.htm |title=Vice Admiral Alfred Wilkinson Johnson, USN Ret. '&#39;The Naval Bombing Experiments: Bombing Operations'&#39; (1959) |publisher=History.navy.mil |date= |accessdate=2009-01-31}}</ref> Although Mitchell had required "war-time conditions", the ships sunk were obsolete, stationary, defenseless and had no damage control. The sinking of ''Ostfriesland'' was accomplished by violating an agreement that would have allowed Navy engineers to examine the effects of various munitions: Mitchell's airmen disregarded the rules, and sank the ship within minutes in a coordinated attack. The stunt made headlines, and Mitchell declared, "No surface vessels can exist wherever air forces acting from land bases are able to attack them." While far from conclusive, Mitchell's test was significant because it put proponents of the battleship against naval aviation on the back foot.<ref name="Sondhaus"/> Rear Admiral [[William A. Moffett]] used public relations against Mitchell to make headway toward expansion of the U.S. Navy's nascent aircraft carrier program.<ref>Jeffers, H. Paul (2006). ''Billy Mitchell: The Life, Times, and Battles of America's Prophet of Air Power''. Zenith Press. ISBN 0-7603-2080-2</ref> ===Rearmament=== The [[Royal Navy]], [[United States Navy]], and [[Imperial Japanese Navy]] extensively upgraded and modernized their World War I–era battleships during the 1930s. Among the new features was a increased tower height and stability for the optical rangefinder equipment (for gunnery control), more armor (especially around turrets) to protect against plunging fire and aerial bombing, and anti-aircraft weapons added. Some British ships received a large block superstructure nicknamed the "Queen Anne's castle", such as in the ''[[HMS Queen Elizabeth (1913)|Queen Elizabeth]]'' and ''[[HMS Warspite (03)|Warspite]]'', which would be used in the new conning towers of the ''[[King George V class battleship (1939)|King George V]]'' [[fast battleship]]s. External bulges were added to improve both buoyancy to counteract weight increase and provide underwater protection against mines and torpedoes. The Japanese rebuilt all of their battleships, plus their battlecruisers, with distinctive "[[pagoda]]" structures, though the {{ship|Japanese battleship|Hiei||2}} received a more modern bridge tower that would influence the new ''[[Yamato class battleship|Yamato]]'' battleships. Bulges were fitted, including steel tube array to improve both underwater and vertical protection along waterline. The U.S. experimented with [[Lattice mast|cage masts]] and later tripod masts, though after [[Attack on Pearl Harbor|Pearl Harbor]] some of the most severely damaged ships such as [[USS West Virginia (BB-48)|''West Virginia'']] and [[USS California (BB-44)|''California'']] were rebuilt to a similar appearance to their [[Iowa class battleship|''Iowa'' class]] contemporaries (called tower masts). Radar, which was effective beyond visual contact and was effective in complete darkness or adverse weather conditions, was introduced to supplement optical fire control.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.combinedfleet.com/b_fire.htm |title=CombinedFleet.com |publisher=Combinedfleet.com |date= |accessdate=2009-01-31}}</ref> Even when war threatened again in the late 1930s, battleship construction did not regain the level of importance which it had held in the years before World War I. The "building holiday" imposed by the naval treaties meant that the building capacity of dockyards worldwide was relatively reduced, and the strategic position had changed. The development of the [[strategic bomber]] meant that the navy was no longer the only method of projecting power overseas, and the development of the [[aircraft carrier]] meant that battleships had a rival for the resources available for capital ship construction.{{Citation needed|date=March 2008}} [[Image:RNVittorio Veneto.jpg|thumb|[[Italian battleship Vittorio Veneto|''Vittorio Veneto'']] (1940)]] In [[Nazi Germany|Germany]], the ambitious [[Plan Z]] for naval rearmament was abandoned in favour of a strategy of submarine warfare supplemented by the use of battlecruisers and [[Bismarck class battleship|''Bismarck'']]-class battleships as commerce raiders. In Britain, the most pressing need was for air defenses and convoy escorts to safeguard the civilian population from bombing or starvation, and re-armament construction plans consisted of five ships of the [[King George V class battleship (1939)|''King George V'']] class. It was in the Mediterranean that navies remained most committed to battleship warfare. France intended to build six battleships of the [[Dunkerque class battleship|''Dunkerque'']] and [[Richelieu class battleship|''Richelieu'']] classes, and the Italians two [[Littorio class battleship|''Littorio'']]-class ships. Neither navy built significant aircraft carriers. The U.S. preferred to spend limited funds on aircraft carriers until the [[South Dakota class battleship (1939)|''South Dakota'']] class. Japan, also prioritising aircraft carriers, nevertheless began work on three mammoth [[Yamato class battleship|''Yamato'']]-class ships (although the third, [[Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano|''Shinano'']], was later completed as a carrier) and a planned fourth was cancelled.<ref name = "Lenton"/> At the outbreak of the [[Spanish Civil War]], the [[Second Spanish Republic|Spanish]] navy consisted of only two small dreadnought battleships, [[Spanish battleship Alfonso XIII|España]] and [[Spanish battleship Jaime I|Jaime I]]. ''España'' (originally named ''Alfonso XIII''), by then in reserve at the northwestern naval base of [[Ferrol, Spain|El Ferrol]], fell into [[Spain under Franco|Nationalist]] hands in July 1936. The crew aboard ''Jaime I'' murdered their officers, mutinied, and joined the Republican Navy. Thus each side had one battleship; however, the Republican Navy generally lacked experienced officers. The Spanish battleships mainly restricted themselves to mutual blockades, convoy escort duties, and shore bombardment, rarely in direct fighting against other surface units.<ref>Gibbons, p.195</ref> In April 1937, ''España'' ran onto a mine laid by friendly forces, and sank with little loss of life. In May 1937, ''Jaime I'' was damaged by Nationalist air attacks and a grounding incident. The ship was forced to go back to port to be repaired. There she was again hit by several aerial bombs. It was then decided to tow the battleship to a more secure port, but during the transport she suffered an internal explosion that caused 300 deaths and her total loss. Several Italian and German capital ships participated in the non-intervention blockade. On 29 May 1937, two Republican aircraft managed to bomb the German pocket battleship {{ship|German battleship|Deutschland||2}} outside [[Ibiza]], causing severe damage and loss of life. {{ship|German battleship|Admiral Scheer||2}} retaliated two days later by bombarding [[Almería]], causing much destruction, and the resulting [[Deutschland incident (1937)|''Deutschland'' incident]] meant the end of German and Italian support for non-intervention.<ref>Greger, René. ''Schlachtschiffe der Welt'', p. 251</ref> ==World War II== {{Main|Battleships in World War II}} [[Image:USS Pennsylvania moving into Lingayen Gulf.jpg|thumb|right|{{USS|Pennsylvania|BB-38|2}} leading battleship {{USS|Colorado|BB-45|2}} and cruisers {{USS|Louisville|CA-28|2}}, {{USS|Portland|CA-33|2}}, and {{USS|Columbia|CL-56|2}} into [[Lingayen Gulf]], [[Philippines]], January 1945]] The German battleship {{Ship|German battleship|Schleswig-Holstein||2}}—an obsolete [[pre-dreadnought]]—fired the first shots of World War II with the bombardment of the Polish garrison at [[Westerplatte]];<ref>Gibbons, p. 163</ref> and the final surrender of the Japanese Empire took place aboard a United States Navy battleship, {{USS|Missouri|BB-63|2}}. Between those two events, it had become clear that aircraft carriers were the new principal ships of the fleet and that battleships now performed a secondary role. Battleships played a part in major engagements in Atlantic, Pacific and Mediterranean theatres; in the Atlantic, the Germans used their battleships as independent commerce raiders. However, clashes between battleships were of little strategic importance. The [[Battle of the Atlantic (1939–1945)|Battle of the Atlantic]] was fought between destroyers and submarines, and most of the decisive fleet clashes of the Pacific war were determined by [[aircraft carrier]]s. In the first year of the war, armored warships defied predictions that aircraft would dominate naval warfare. [[German battleship Scharnhorst|''Scharnhorst'']] and [[German battleship Gneisenau|''Gneisenau'']] surprised and sank the aircraft carrier [[HMS Glorious|''Glorious'']] off western [[Norway]] in June 1940.<ref>Gibbons, pp. 246–247</ref> This engagement marked the last time a fleet carrier was sunk by surface gunnery. In the [[Attack on Mers-el-Kébir]], British battleships opened fire on the French battleships harboured in Algiers with their own heavy guns, and later pursued fleeing French ships with planes from aircraft carriers. The subsequent years of the war saw many demonstrations of the maturity of the aircraft carrier as a strategic naval weapon and its potential against battleships. The British air attack on the Italian naval base at [[Battle of Taranto|Taranto]] sank one Italian battleship and damaged two more. The same [[Fairey Swordfish|Swordfish]] torpedo bombers played a crucial role in sinking the German commerce-raider {{ship|German battleship|Bismarck||2}}. [[Image:Yamato during Trial Service.jpg|thumb|The [[Imperial Japanese Navy]]'s [[Japanese battleship Yamato|''Yamato'']] (1940), seen in 1941, and her sister ship [[Japanese battleship Musashi|''Musashi'']] (1940) were the heaviest battleships in history.]] On 7 December 1941 the Japanese launched a surprise [[attack on Pearl Harbor]]. Within a short time five of eight U.S. battleships were sunk or sinking, with the rest damaged. The American aircraft carriers were out to sea, however, and evaded detection. They in turn would take up the fight, eventually turning the tide of the war in the [[Pacific Ocean|Pacific]]. The [[Sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse|sinking of the British battleship ''Prince of Wales'']] and her escort, the battlecruiser HMS ''Repulse'', demonstrated the vulnerability of a battleship to air attack while at sea without sufficient air cover, finally settling the argument begun by Mitchell in 1921. Both warships were under way and enroute to attack the Japanese amphibious force that had invaded [[Battle of Malaya|Malaya]] when they were caught by Japanese land-based [[bomber]]s and [[torpedo bomber]]s on 10 December 1941.<ref>Axell, Albert: ''Kamikaze'', p. 14</ref> At many of the early crucial battles of the Pacific, for instance [[Battle of the Coral Sea|Coral Sea]] and [[Battle of Midway|Midway]], battleships were either absent or overshadowed as carriers launched wave after wave of planes into the attack at a range of hundreds of miles. In later battles in the Pacific, battleships primarily performed shore bombardment in support of amphibious landings and provided anti-aircraft defense as escort for the carriers. Even the largest battleships ever constructed, Japan's [[Yamato class battleship|''Yamato'' class]], which carried a main battery of nine 18-inch (46&nbsp;cm) guns and were designed as a principal strategic weapon, were never given a chance to show their potential in the decisive battleship action that figured in Japanese pre-war planning.<ref>Gibbons, pp. 262&ndash;263</ref> The last battleship confrontation in history was the [[Battle of Surigao Strait]], on October 25, 1944, in which the classic "[[crossing the T]]" tactic was employed for the last time to enable a superior American battleship group to decimate a lesser Japanese battleship group with radar directed concentration of fire, however purists claim that the early wave of torpedoes from American destroyers caused a crucial reduction in Japanese firepower, and those remaining lacked the ability to direct fire with radar. All but one of the American battleships in this confrontation had previously been sunk at the Attack on [[Pearl Harbor]] and subsequently raised and repaired. The [[USS Mississippi]] fired the last salvo of this battle and the last salvo fired by a battleship against another heavy ship, ending the era of the battleship in surface naval combat. ==Cold War== [[File:Operation Crossroads Baker Edit.jpg|thumb|[[Operation Crossroads]] Event Baker explosion]] After World War II, several navies retained their existing battleships, but they were no longer strategically dominant military assets. Indeed, it soon became apparent that they were no longer worth the considerable cost of construction and maintenance and only one new battleship was commissioned after the war, HMS Vanguard. During the war it had been demonstrated that battleship-on-battleship engagements like [[Battle of Leyte Gulf|Leyte Gulf]] or the sinking of {{HMS|Hood|51|2}} were the exception and not the rule, and with the growing role of aircraft engagement ranges were becoming longer and longer, making heavy gun armament irrelevant. The armor of a battleship was equally irrelevant in the face of a [[nuclear warfare|nuclear attack]] as tactical missiles with a range of {{convert|100|km|mi|-1}} or more could be mounted on the Soviet {{sclass|Kildin|destroyer}} and {{sclass|Whiskey|submarine}}. By the end of the 1950s, minor vessel classes which formerly offered no noteworthy opposition now were capable of eliminating battleships at will. The remaining battleships met a variety of ends. {{USS|Arkansas|BB-33|6}} and {{ship|Japanese battleship|Nagato||2}} were sunk during the testing of nuclear weapons in [[Operation Crossroads]] in 1946. Both battleships proved resistant to nuclear air burst but vulnerable to underwater nuclear explosions.<ref>''Operation 'Crossroads' — the Bikini A-bomb tests'', in {{cite book | last = Ireland | first = Bernard | title = Jane's Battleships of the 20th Century | publisher = HarperCollins | year = 1996 | location = New York | pages = 186–87 | isbn = 0 0047 0997 7}}</ref> The Italian [[Italian battleship Giulio Cesare|''Giulio Cesare'']] was taken by the Soviets as reparations and renamed ''Novorossiysk''; she was sunk by a German mine in the [[Black Sea]] on 29 October 1955. The two [[Andrea Doria class battleship|''Andrea Doria'' class]] ships were scrapped in 1956.<ref>Fitzsimons, Bernard, ed. (technical assistance from Bill Gunston, Antony Preston, & Ian Hogg) ''Illustrated Encyclopedia of 20th Century Weapons and Warfare'' (London: Phoebus, 1978), Volume 2, p.114.</ref> The French [[French battleship Lorraine|''Lorraine'']] was scrapped in 1954, [[French battleship Richelieu|''Richelieu'']] in 1968,<ref>Fitzsimons, Volume 20, p.2213, "''Richelieu''". No mention of her sister, ''Jean Bart''.</ref> and [[French ship Jean Bart|''Jean Bart'']] in 1970.<ref>Gardiner, Robert (Ed.); (1980); ''Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1922–1946''; ISBN 0-85177-146-7; p. 260</ref> The United Kingdom's four surviving [[King George V class battleship (1939)|''King George V'' class]] ships were scrapped in 1957,<ref>Fitzsimons, Volume 15, p.1636, "''King George V''"</ref> and [[HMS Vanguard (23)|''Vanguard'']] followed in 1960.<ref>Fitzsimons, Volume 23, p.2554, "''Vanguard''"</ref> All other surviving British battleships had been sold or broken up by 1949.<ref>Gardiner, pp. 7 and 14</ref> The Soviet Union's ''[[Russian battleship Petropavlovsk (1911)|''Petropavlovsk'']]'' was scrapped in 1953, [[Russian battleship Sevastopol (1911)|''Sevastopol'']] in 1957 and [[Russian battleship Gangut (1911)|''Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya'']] (back under her original name, ''Gangut'', since 1942)<ref name="Fitzsimons">Fitzsimons, Volume 10, p.1086, "''Gangut''"</ref> in 1956-7.<ref name="Fitzsimons"/> Brazil's [[Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes|''Minas Gerais'']] was scrapped in Genoa in 1953,<ref name="Fitzsimons_2">Fitzsimons, Volume 17, p.1896, "''Minas Gerais''"</ref> and her sister ship [[Brazilian battleship São Paulo|''São Paulo'']] sank during a storm in the Atlantic ''en route'' to the breakers in Italy in 1951.<ref name="Fitzsimons_2"/> Argentina kept its two [[Rivadavia class battleship|''Rivadavia'' class]] ships until 1956 and Chile kept [[Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre|''Almirante Latorre'']] (formerly HMS ''Canada'') until 1959.<ref>Fitzsimons, Volume 1, p.84, "''Almirante Latorre''"</ref> The [[Turkey|Turkish]] battlecruiser ''Yavuz'' (formerly [[SMS Goeben|''Goeben'']], launched in 1911) was scrapped in 1976 after an offer to sell her back to Germany was refused. Sweden had several small coastal-defense battleships, one of which, [[HMS Gustav V|''Gustav V'']], survived until 1970.<ref>Gardiner, p. 368</ref> The Soviets scrapped four large incomplete cruisers in the late 1950s, whilst plans to build a number of new [[Stalingrad class battlecruiser|''Stalingrad''-class]] battlecruisers were abandoned following the death of [[Joseph Stalin]] in 1953.<ref>{{cite book|last=McLaughlin|first=Stephen|title=Project 82: The Stalingrad Class|editor=Jordan, John|publisher=Conway|location=London|year=2006|series=Warship 2006|pages=117|isbn=978-1-84486-030-2}}</ref> The three old German battleships {{ship|German battleship|Schleswig-Holstein||2}}, {{ship|German battleship|Schlesien||2}}, and [[SMS Hessen|''Hessen'']] all met similar ends. ''Hessen'' was taken over by the Soviet Union and renamed ''Tsel''. She was scrapped in 1960. ''Schleswig-Holstein'' was renamed ''Borodino'', and was used as a target ship until 1960. ''Schlesien'', too, was used as a target ship. She was broken up between 1952 and 1957.<ref>Gardiner, p. 222</ref> [[Image:Missouri missile BGM-109 Tomahawk.JPG|thumb|{{USS|Missouri|BB-63|6}} launches a [[Tomahawk missile]] during ''Operation Desert Storm''.]] The [[Iowa class battleship|''Iowa'' class battleships]] gained a new lease of life in the U.S. Navy as fire support ships. [[Radar]] and computer-controlled gunfire could be aimed with pinpoint accuracy to target. The U.S. recommissioned all four ''Iowa'' class battleships for the [[Korean War]] and the {{USS|New Jersey|BB-62|2}} for the [[Vietnam War]]. These were primarily used for shore bombardment, ''New Jersey'' firing nearly 6,000 rounds of 16&nbsp;inch shells and over 14,000 rounds of 5&nbsp;inch projectiles during her tour on the gunline,<ref>Polmar, p. 129</ref> seven times more rounds against shore targets in Vietnam than she had in the Second World War.<ref>History of World Seapower, Bernard Brett, ISBN 0-603-03723-2, p. 236</ref> As part of [[United States Secretary of the Navy|Navy Secretary]] [[John F. Lehman]]'s effort to build a [[600-ship Navy]] in the 1980s, and in response to the commissioning of ''[[Soviet battlecruiser Kirov|Kirov]]'' by the Soviet Union, the United States recommissioned all four ''Iowa'' class battleships. On several occasions, battleships were support ships in [[carrier battle group]]s, or led their own [[battleship battle group]]. These were modernized to carry [[Tomahawk missile]]s, with ''New Jersey'' seeing action bombarding [[Lebanon]] in 1983 and 1984, while {{USS|Missouri|BB-63|2}} and {{USS|Wisconsin|BB-64|2}} fired their 16&nbsp;inch (406&nbsp;mm) guns at land targets and launched missiles during [[Operation Desert Storm]] in 1991. ''Wisconsin'' served as the [[BGM-109 Tomahawk|TLAM]] strike commander for the Persian Gulf, directing the sequence of launches that marked the opening of ''Desert Storm'', firing a total of 24 TLAMs during the first two days of the campaign. The primary threat to the battleships were Iraqi shore based surface-to-surface missiles; ''Missouri'' was targeted by two [[Iraq]]i [[Silkworm missile]]s, with one missing and another being intercepted by the British destroyer {{HMS|Gloucester|D96|6}}.<ref>[http://www.global-defence.com/1997/DefencePower.html] Defence power: developments of the decade</ref> All four ''Iowas'' were decommissioned in the early 1990s, making them the last battleships to see active service. USS ''Iowa'' and USS ''Wisconsin'' were, until fiscal year 2006, maintained to a standard where they could be rapidly returned to service as fire support vessels, pending the development of a superior fire support vessel.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/bb-61.htm|title= Iowa Class Battleship|accessdate=2007-03-18 |publisher = Federation of American Scientists}}</ref> The U.S. Marine Corps believes that the current naval surface fire support gun and missile programs will not be able to provide adequate fire support for an [[amphibious warfare|amphibious assault]] or onshore operations.<ref>The USMC has revised its Naval Surface Gunfire Support requirements, leaving some questions as to whether or not the [[Zumwalt class destroyer]] can meet the Marine qualifications.</ref><ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.fas.org/man/gao/gao95160.htm|title= Naval Surface Fires Support|author = United States General Accounting Office|accessdate=2007-03-18 |publisher = Federation of American Scientists}}</ref> ==Modern times== [[Image:USS Texas BB-35.jpg|thumb|left|The American {{USS|Texas|BB-35|2}} (1912) is the only preserved example of a Dreadnought-type battleship that dates to the time of the original HMS ''Dreadnought''.]] With the decommissioning of the last ''Iowa''-class ships, no battleships remain in service (including in reserve) with any navy worldwide. A number are preserved as [[museum ship]]s, either afloat or in drydock. The U.S. has a large number of battleships on display: {{USS|Massachusetts|BB-59|6}}, {{USS|North Carolina|BB-55|2}}, {{USS|Alabama|BB-60|2}}, {{USS|New Jersey|BB-62|2}}, {{USS|Wisconsin|BB-64|2}}, {{USS|Missouri|BB-63|2}}, and {{USS|Texas|BB-35|2}}. ''Missouri'' and ''New Jersey'' are now museums at [[Pearl Harbor]] and [[Camden, New Jersey]], respectively. ''Wisconsin'' was removed from the [[Naval Vessel Register]] in 2006 and now serves as a museum ship in [[Norfolk, Virginia]].<ref>[http://www.wavy.com/dpp/military/City-to-take-ownership-of-USS-Wisconsin-Friday "WCBC files lawsuit"]. Associated Press. 14 April 2010. Retrieved: 15 April 2010.</ref> ''Texas'', the first battleship turned into a museum, is on display at the [[San Jacinto Battleground State Historic Site]], near [[Houston]]. ''North Carolina'' is on display in Wilmington, NC. The only other true battleship on display is the Japanese pre-Dreadnought {{ship|Japanese battleship|Mikasa||2}}. ==In strategy and doctrine== ===Doctrine=== Battleships were the embodiment of [[sea power]]. For [[Alfred Thayer Mahan]] and his followers, a strong navy was vital to the success of a nation, and control of the seas was vital for the projection of force on land and overseas. Mahan's theory dictated that the role of the battleship was to sweep the enemy from the seas.<ref>Massie, Robert K. ''Castles of Steel'', London, 2005. ISBN 1-84413-411-3</ref> While the work of escorting, [[blockade|blockading]] and raiding might be done by [[cruiser]]s or smaller vessels, the presence of the battleship was a potential threat to any convoy escorted by any vessels other than capital ships. (This came to be known as a "[[fleet in being]]".) Mahan went on to say victory could only be achieved by engagements between battleships,<ref>Mahan, A.T., Captain. ''Influence of Sea Power on History, 1660–1783.'' (Boston: Little Brown), ''passim.''</ref> (which came to be known as the "decisive battle" doctrine in [[Imperial Japanese Navy|some navies]]), while ''[[guerre de course]]'' (developed by the ''[[Jeune École]]'') could never succeed. Mahan was highly influential in naval and political circles throughout the age of the battleship,<ref name="Sondhaus"/><ref>Kennedy, pp. 2, 200, 206.</ref> calling for a large fleet of the most powerful battleships possible. Mahan's work developed in the late 1880s, and by the end of the 1890s it had a massive international impact,<ref name = "Sondhaus"/> in the end adopted by many major navies (notably the British, American, German, and Japanese). The strength of Mahanian opinion was important in the development of the battleships arms races, and equally important in the agreement of the Powers to limit battleship numbers in the interwar era. 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.<ref>{{cite web|author=John Pike |url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/fleet-in-being.htm |title="Fleet In Being", Globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 18 March 2007 |publisher=Globalsecurity.org |date=2007-05-03 |accessdate=2009-01-31}}</ref> ===Tactics=== While the role of battleships in both World Wars reflected Mahanian doctrine, the details of battleship deployment were more complex. Unlike the [[ship of the line]], the battleships of the late 19th and early 20th centuries had significant vulnerability to torpedoes and mines, weapons which could be used by relatively small and inexpensive craft. The [[Jeune École]] school of thought of the 1870s and 1880s recommended the placing of [[torpedo boat]]s alongside battleships; the boats would hide behind the battleships until gun-smoke obscured visibility enough for them to dart out and fire their torpedoes.<ref name = "Sondhaus" /> While this concept was vitiated by the development of smokeless propellant, the threat from more capable torpedo craft (later including submarines) remained. By the 1890s the Royal Navy had developed the first [[destroyer]]s, small ships designed to intercept and drive off any attacking torpedo boats. During the First World War and subsequently, battleships were rarely deployed without a protective screen of destroyers. Battleship doctrine emphasised the concentration of the battlegroup. In order for this concentrated force to be able to bring its power to bear on a reluctant opponent (or to avoid an encounter with a stronger enemy fleet), battlefleets needed some means of locating enemy ships beyond horizon range. This was provided by scouting forces; at various stages [[battlecruisers]], [[cruisers]], destroyers, [[airship]]s, submarines and aircraft were all used. (With the development of radio, [[direction finding]] and [[traffic analysis]] would come into play, as well, so even shore stations, broadly speaking, joined the battlegroup.<ref>It could presage an enemy sortie, or locate an enemy over the horizon. Beesly, Patrick. ''Room 40'' (London : Hamish Hamilton)</ref>) So for most of their history, battleships operated surrounded by squadrons of destroyers and cruisers. The North Sea campaign of the First World War illustrates how, despite this support, the threat of mine and torpedo attack, and the failure to integrate or appreciate the capabilities of new techniques,<ref>Beesly.</ref> seriously inhibited the operations of the Royal Navy Grand Fleet, the greatest battleship fleet of its time. ===Strategic and diplomatic impact=== The presence of battleships had a great psychological and diplomatic impact. Similar to possessing [[nuclear weapon]]s today, the ownership of battleships served to enhance a nation's force projection.<ref name="Sondhaus"/> Even during the [[Cold War]], the psychological impact of a battleship was significant. In 1946, USS ''Missouri'' was dispatched to deliver the remains of the ambassador from Turkey, and her presence in Turkish and [[Greece|Greek]] waters staved off a possible Soviet thrust into the [[Balkans|Balkan]] region.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/m12/missouri-iv.htm|title= USS Missouri|accessdate=2007-03-18 |publisher= Naval Historical Center|work= Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships}}</ref> In September 1983, when [[Druze]] militia in [[Lebanon]]'s Shouf Mountains fired upon U.S. Marine peacekeepers, the arrival of USS ''New Jersey'' stopped the firing. Gunfire from ''New Jersey'' later killed militia leaders.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/battleships/newjersey/bb62-nj.html |title= USS New Jersey|accessdate=2007-03-18 |work= Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships}}</ref> ===Value for money=== Battleships were the largest and most complex, and hence the most expensive warships of their time; as a result, the value of investment in battleships has always been contested. As the French politician Etienne Lamy wrote in 1879, "The construction of battleships is so costly, their effectiveness so uncertain and of such short duration, that the enterprise of creating an armored fleet seems to leave fruitless the perseverance of a people".<ref>Quoted in [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JIW/is_4_58/ai_n15927771/pg_5 Net-Centric before its time: The Jeune École and Its Lessons for Today] Erik J. Dahl U.S. Naval War College Review, Autumn 2005, Vol. 58, No. 4</ref> The ''[[Jeune École]]'' school of thought of the 1870s and 1880s sought alternatives to the crippling expense and debatable utility of a conventional battlefleet. It proposed what would nowadays be termed a [[sea denial]] strategy, based on fast, long-ranged cruisers for commerce raiding and torpedo boat flotillas to attack enemy ships attempting to blockade French ports. The ideas of the ''Jeune Ecole'' were ahead of their time; it was not until the 20th century that efficient mines, torpedoes, submarines, and aircraft were available that allowed similar ideas to be effectively implemented.<ref>Dahl, ''op cit.''</ref> The determination of powers such as the [[German Empire]] to build battlefleets with which to confront much stronger rivals has been criticised by historians, who emphasise the futility of investment in a battlefleet which has no chance of matching its opponent in an actual battle.<ref name="Sondhaus"/> According to this view, attempts by a weaker navy to compete head-to-head with a stronger one in battleship construction simply wasted resources which could have been better invested in attacking the enemy's points of weakness. In Germany's case, the British dependence on massive imports of food and raw materials proved to be a near-fatal weakness, once Germany had accepted the political risk of [[unrestricted submarine warfare]] against commercial shipping. Although the U-boat offensive in 1917–18 was ultimately defeated, it was successful in causing huge material loss and forcing the Allies to divert vast resources into [[anti-submarine warfare]]. This success, though not ultimately decisive, was nevertheless in sharp contrast to the inability of the German battlefleet to challenge the supremacy of Britain's far stronger fleet. ==See also== {{Portal|Battleships}} *[[List of battleships]] *[[List of battleships by country]] *[[List of battleship classes]] *[[List of sunken battleships]] *[[Arsenal ship]] ==Notes== {{Reflist|2}} ==References== {{Refbegin|2}} * {{cite book |last= Appel |first= Erik ''et al.'' |title= Finland i krig 1939–1940 - första delen |year= 2001 |publisher= Schildts förlag Ab |location= Espoo, Finland |language= Swedish |page= 261 |isbn = 951-50-1182-5}} * {{cite book |last=Archibald|first=E. H. H. |title=The Fighting Ship in the Royal Navy 1897–1984 |publisher=Blandford |year=1984 |isbn=0-7137-1348-8}} * {{cite book |last= Axell |first= Albert ''et al.'' |title= Kamikaze - Japans självmordspiloter |year= 2004 |publisher= Historiska media |location= Lund, Sweden |language= Swedish |page= 316 |isbn = 91-85057-09-6}} * {{cite book |last= Brown|first=D. K. |title=Warrior to Dreadnought: Warship Development 1860–1905 |year=2003 |publisher=Book Sales |isbn=978-1-84067-529-0}} * {{cite book |last= Brown|first=D. K. |title=The Grand Fleet: Warship Design and Development 1906–1922|year=2003 |publisher=Caxton Editions |page=208 |isbn=978-1-84067-531-3}} * {{cite book |last= Brunila |first= Kai ''et al.'' |title= Finland i krig 1940–1944 - andra delen |year= 2000 |publisher= Schildts förlag Ab |location= Espoo, Finland |language= Swedish |page= 285 |isbn = 951-50-1140-X}} * {{cite book |title=British Battlecruisers 1914–18 |last=Burr |first=Lawrence |series=New Vanguard No. 126 |year=2006 |publisher=Osprey Publishing |location=Oxford |isbn=1846030080}} * Corbett, Sir Julian. "Maritime Operations In The Russo-Japanese War 1904–1905." (1994). Originally Classified and in two volumes. ISBN 1-55750-129-7. * {{cite book |last=Friedman|first=Norman|title=U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated History |publisher=Naval Institute Press|year=1984 |isbn=0-87021-715-1}} * {{cite book |last=Gardiner|first=Robert (Ed.) and Gray, Randal (Author) |title=Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1906–1921|publisher=Naval Institute Press |year=1985 |page=439 |isbn=978-0-87021-907-8}} * {{cite book |last=Gardiner|first=Robert (Ed.) |title=Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1922–1946 |publisher=Conway Maritime Press|year=1980|isbn=0-85177-146-7}} * {{cite book |last=Gardiner|first=Robert (Ed.) and Lambert, Andrew (Ed.) |title=''Steam, Steel and Shellfire: The steam warship 1815–1905 - Conway's History of the Ship |publisher=Book Sales|page=192|isbn=978-0-78581-413-9}} * {{cite book |last= Gibbons |first= Tony |title= The Complete Encyclopedia of Battleships and Battlecruisers - A Technical Directory of all the World's Capital Ships from 1860 to the Present Day |year= 1983 |publisher= Salamander Books Ltd |location= London, UK |page= 272 |isbn = 0-51737-810-8}} * {{cite book |last=Greger|first=René|title=Schlachtschiffe der Welt |publisher=Motorbuch Verlag |location=Stuttgart, Stuttgart |language=German |year=1993 |page=260 |isbn=3-613-01459-9}} * {{cite book |last=Ireland |first=Bernard and Grove, Eric |title=Jane's War At Sea 1897–1997 |publisher=Harper Collins Publishers|location=London|year=1997 |page=256 |isbn=0-00-472065-2}} * {{cite book |last= Jacobsen |first= Alf R. |title= Dödligt angrepp - miniubåtsräden mot slagskeppet Tirpitz |year= 2005 |publisher= Natur & Kultur|location= Stockholm, Sweden |language= Swedish |page= 282 |isbn = 91-27-09897-4}} * {{cite book |title=The First World War |first=John |last=Keegan |isbn=0-7126-6645-1}} * {{cite book |last=Kennedy |first=Paul M. |title=The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery |location=London |year=1983 |isbn=0-333-35094-4}} * {{cite book |last=Lambert |first=Andrew |title=Battleships in Transition - The Creation of the Steam Battlefleet 1815–1860 |publisher=Conway Maritime Press |location=London |year=1984 |page=161 |isbn=0-85177-315-X}} * {{cite book |last= Lenton |first= H. T. |title= Krigsfartyg efter 1860 |year= 1971 |publisher= Forum AB |location= Stockholm, Sweden |language= Swedish |page= 160 }} * {{cite book |last= Linder |first= Jan ''et al.'' |title= Ofredens hav - Östersjön 1939–1992 |year= 2002 |publisher= Svenska Tryckericentralen AB |location= Avesta, Sweden |language= Swedish |page= 224 |isbn = 91-631-2035-6}} * {{cite book |last=Massie |first=Robert |title=Castles of Steel - Britain, Germany and the Winning of the Great War at Sea |publisher=Pimlico |location=London |year=2005 |isbn=1-844-134113}} * {{cite book |last=O'Connell|first=Robert L. |title=Sacred Vessels: the Cult of the Battleship and the Rise of the U.S. Navy|publisher=Westview Press |location=Boulder |year=1991 |isbn=0-8133-1116-0}} * {{cite book |last= Padfield |first=Peter |title=The Battleship Era |publisher=Military Book Society |location= London |year=1972 |isbn= |oclc= 51245970 }} * {{cite book |last=Parkes |first=Oscar |title=British Battleships |publisher=first published Seeley Service & Co, 1957, published United States Naval Institute Press |year=1990|isbn=1-55750-075-4}} * Polmar, Norman. ''The Naval Institute Guide to the Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet.'' 2001, Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-5575 0656-6. * {{cite book |last= Preston |first= Anthony (Foreword) |title= Jane's Fighting Ships of World War II |year= 1989 |publisher= Random House Ltd |location= London, UK |page= 320 |isbn = 1-851-70494-9}} * {{cite book |last=Russel |first=Scott J. |title=The Fleet of the Future |location=London |year=1861}} * {{cite book |last=Sondhaus |first=Lawrence |title=Naval Warfare 1815–1914 |location=London |year=2001 |isbn=0-415-21478-5}} * {{cite book |last= Stilwell |first= Paul |title= Battleships |year= 2001 |publisher= MetroBooks |location= New Your, USA |page= 160 |isbn = 1-58663-044-X}} * {{cite book |last= Tamelander |first= Michael ''et al.'' |title= Slagskeppet Tirpitz - kampen om Norra Ishavet |year= 2006 |publisher= Norstedts Förlag |language= Swedish |page= 363 |isbn = 91-1-301554-0}} * {{cite book |last= Taylor |first= A. J. P. (Red.) ''et al.'' |title= 1900-talet: Vår tids historia i ord och bild; Part 12 |year= 1975 |publisher= Bokfrämjandet |location= Helsingborg |language= Swedish |page= 159 }} * {{cite book |last= Wetterholm |first= Claes-Göran |title= Dödens hav - Östersjön 1945 |year= 2002 |publisher= Bokförlaget Prisma |location= Stockholm, Sweden |language= Swedish |page= 279 |isbn = 91-518-3968-7}} * {{cite book |last=Wilson |first=H. W. |title=Ironclads in Action - Vol 1 |location=London |year=1898}} * {{cite book |last= Zetterling |first= Niklas ''et al.'' |title= Bismarck - Kampen om Atlanten |year= 2004 |publisher= Nordstedts förlag |location= Stockholm, Sweden |language= Swedish |page= 312 |isbn = 91-1-301288-6}} {{Refend}} ==External links== {{Sisterlinks}} * [http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm Comparison of the capabilities of seven World War II battleships] * [http://www.chuckhawks.com/super_battleships_projected.htm Comparison of projected post-World War II battleship designs] * [http://www.geocities.com/batdev Development of U.S. battleships, with timeline graph] {{BBhistory}} {{Warship types of the 19th & 20th centuries}} {{Featured article}} [[Category:Ship types]] [[Category:Battleships|*]] {{Link FA|he}} {{Link FA|sv}} [[ar:بارجة]] [[bs:Bojni brod]] [[ca:Cuirassat]] [[cs:Bitevní loď]] [[da:Slagskib]] [[de:Schlachtschiff]] [[nv:Tsin naaʼeeł bee daʼahijighánígíí]] [[et:Lahingulaev]] [[el:Θωρηκτό]] [[es:Acorazado]] [[fa:نبردناو]] [[fr:Cuirassé]] [[gl:Acoirazado]] [[ko:전함]] [[hr:Bojni brod]] [[it:Nave da battaglia]] [[he:אוניית מערכה]] [[hu:Csatahajó]] [[ms:Kapal perang]] [[nl:Slagschip]] [[ja:戦艦]] [[no:Slagskip]] [[nn:Slagskip]] [[pl:Pancernik]] [[pt:Couraçado]] [[ro:Cuirasat]] [[ru:Линкор]] [[sk:Bojová loď]] [[sr:Бојни брод]] [[fi:Taistelulaiva]] [[sv:Slagskepp]] [[th:เรือประจัญบาน]] [[uk:Лінкор]] [[vi:Thiết giáp hạm]] [[zh:戰艦]]

Return to Battleship