(September 27, 2015 at 4:34 pm)abaris Wrote:(September 27, 2015 at 4:29 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: It's like saying a main battle tank is an "anachronistic freak" because of the invention of antitank missiles. They still dominate the battlefield, if properly supported and protected. But, like the expensive and huge battleships, they are being increasingly augmented by relatively unarmored, more-mobile light vehicles such as the LAV-25.
No, it's more like an Abrams tank compared to a Sherman. The submarines and other torpedo carriers had all the advantages over basttleships. The Battle of the Skagerrak was the only real battleship battle in history. And it ended with a stalemate.
Actually, come to think of it, the battleships were on the same lines of outdated tactics as the land battles with blind charges were. Technology had moved on, but the thinking of the strategists hadn't.
The USS Washington and IJN Kirishima fought head-to-head off Guadalcanal in 1942, with the latter being scuttled after taking at least 9 16" hits and an estimated 40 5" hits in the space of 10 minutes. It helped that Capt (later Adm) Willis Lee was a radar expert in that night battle.
