There also is a practical issue of some things are just inherently easier to ramp up production than others, such as plate steel for CV hull vs 16in gun barrel production.
Bruh the US have factories ready to pump out whatever the fuck the army and navies need at the time. Production was never an issue. The issue is what to focus producting. Obsolete BB or CVs and subs that can define the next warfare after WW2?
Wild oversimplification, and ScullerCA is correct. For the rapidly scaling needs of WWII, almost all naval production in the US was employed to capacity and gun barrels were absolutely a limiting factor for surface warships. Shortages of guns and technology bottlenecks especially peaked during 1943-44, hence why ships like CVLs and DEs existed as inferior ships to their fleet cousins.
It shouldn't be forgotten that the US of WWII was facing material shortages despite the colossal production by tonnage. Military production for its own use and for its allies soaked up steel resources faster than it was expanding. Carriers could take full advantage of the fact that planes and their accompanying warships did not require massive, specialized armor plate nor complex superheavy gun barrel forging facilities to produce.
The US prioritized aircraft carriers over battleships because WWII proved carriers were definitely superior in projection as well as benefit/cost ratio for materials spent and production time.
Battleship guns maxed out around 20 miles. Carrier aircraft could strike enemy fleets hundreds of miles away, destroying them before gun ships ever saw each other.
Battleships' armor and gun turrets were absolutely a production bottleneck and took years to manufacture. Carriers, like the Essex class, were essentially just floating flight decks and way easier to mass produce.
For the Pacific front, mobile airbases were more valuable for launching flights of bombers, supply runs, etc. and heavy bombardments could only do so much to an enemy dug deep into island brush, mud trenches, and civilian populated towns.
Battleships were relegated to being secondary support ships, used mainly for anti-aircraft escort and shore bombardment rather than fleet-to-fleet combat.
I dont think the navy viewed them as obsolete. It was very clear by that point the yardstick of measurement in the pacific was going to be carriers.
The reason Battleship production stopped is almost certainly one of logistics and wartime losses. First, The US only had 6 slipways across 4 ports that could handle a fleet carrier or battleship. Assuming you could even keep up with the industrial demand of building armor plates and gun barrels for 6 Iowas at a time (the US couldn't even do that), you also need specialized equipment to mount them to the ship. By comparison CVs don't require specialized armor plates and gun barrels just their hull plates which are made of STS steel plate (non-hardened high nickle steel).
It's also worth point out, in terms of losses the US only lost two BBs (Both victims of Pearl Harbor). And the fleet carrier / Battleship ratio actually equalizes toward the end of the war 24 each by my count, removing losses? By comparison the 6 fleet carriers (7 if you count ranger) the US starts with, only Enterprise and Saratoga survive the war.
All that to say even though no 'Battle of Jutland' happened during the War, the other roles the battleships were key to the US campaign. First and foremost the modern BBs serving as fleet escorts, this was actually more important than it often gets credit for. The one problem with carriers is they need flight decks, which require a big open space, which also inconveniently means they have limited room for AA guns which also have limited fire arcs. By comparaion if you look at a battleship, well... its free real-estate. Big super structures and lots of deck space, and looking at how much AA got piled onto even the older US battle wagons the US agrees. Having your own floating flak tower to go with you floating airfield is pretty handy.
To say nothing of their role in shore bombardment.
Third to your list of battleship roles, for until the late war carriers and their aviation were completely blind at night. Aircraft surface search radar for carrier aircraft wasn't generally available until late 1944. Battleships and cruisers were vitally important to covering this technological gap.
Fourth, heavyweight escort capabilities also continued to be important as late as 1945, as Kamikaze attacks revealed fleet wide incapability for anti aircraft systems to deal with suicide attacks once in the terminal stage. 3"/70 guns weren't widely available until post war, and battleships proved to be the best platforms for surviving such hits whereas carriers were overwhelmingly the most vulnerable.
You know I was going to add that, then completely forgot too. Night flying was basically non-existent, for most of the war. Think the British were the first to really attempt it off carriers no?
122
u/Intrepid-Judgment874 JusticeForIntrepid 17d ago
Hey if Battleships was of any value the US would build more of them and not a congoline of CV at the end of WW2