Where did the name "Battleship" come from?

I am blogging about Battleships...Again.    It seems to be popular on my blog, For an Army guy I blog a lot about the big gray canoes that the Navy used to have in active service.

 

My Son back in 2012 on the U.S.S Alabama 

You ever wonder where the name "Battleship" came from?, well I have the knowledge right here,   I kinda wondered where the name came from, sure the name imparted the purpose of the ship.  the name just conotated that the ship was there to kick butt and take names in the furtherance of National policies, The Big Stick of Diplomacy if diplomacy fails, you use the Big stick to beat the other guy into submission.   And depending on the class of the ship and crew it can be spectacular.

Think ‘battleship’, and you might think of the steam-driven steel warships that emerged during the last decade or so of the nineteenth century, and which remained an important measure of sea-force until the Second World War. In that, you would be right.

The word ‘battleship’, though, is much older. The word ‘battle’ originated from Latin, via old French, and was used in old English as early as 1297, spelt ‘batayle’. But it took a while to be applied to ships. By the early sixteenth century, the term ‘great ship’ was in use to describe the most powerful warship around, typically a one-off prestige vessel such as English monarch Henry VIII’s Henry Grace a’ Dieu of 1514.

Henry Grace a’Dieu – (‘Henry, Grace of God’) also known as the ‘Great Harry’, classed as a ‘great ship. Public domain, via Wikipedia.

Henry VIII’s navy of the mid-1540s comprised 58 ships, reputedly divided into four classifications: ‘ships, galleasses, pinnaces and cow-barges’. From this evolved the Royal Navy’s age-of-sail ‘rating system’, based on the number of guns: ‘First rate’, ‘Second rate’ and so on, down to ‘Sixth rate’, the smallest.  A list that Samuel Pepys prepared for the Royal Navy in 1679 contained nine first-rates, 17 second-rates and 41 third-rates in service at the time.
Tactics had evolved by about 1600 into a system where fleets sailed into combat in lines. In the Royal Navy, the first four ‘rates’ – later three – could operate in that line of battle, and by the turn of the eighteenth century were generically known as ‘line-of-battle-ships’.  The word ‘battleship’, an obvious contraction, was first used in 1794. Admiral Lord Nelson apparently used both forms in a sentence in 1804. ‘We may as well have a battle royal,’ he reputedly declared. ‘Line-of-battle-ships opposed to ships-of-the-line, and frigates to frigates’.

HMS Captain, a masted turret ship. She foundered in September 1870 with heavy loss of life. Public domain.

Things got interesting from the mid-nineteenth century. Game-changing inventions such as turrets, steam engines and rifled heavy guns arrived with bewildering speed. Ships built from the 1860s were often classified according to their technical features, including ‘central battery’ ships or ‘turret ships’. The low-freeboard ‘monitors’ of the day took their type-name from the original, USS Monitor. One meaning of the word at the time was ‘warning’ or ‘admonishment’; and the inventor John Ericsson chose it because, he said, the ship would ‘prove a severe monitor’ to the Union’s enemies, and to Britain.

HMS Royal Sovereign of 1892. Use of the term ‘battleship’ underscores the currency of the term by this time.

The term ‘battleship’ did not re-emerge until the 1880s, as the technology settled down. Sometimes these ships were called ‘mastless battleships’ to set them apart from the old line-of-battle-ships.  The Royal Navy formally adopted the term for its heaviest ships in 1887, and by the turn of the twentieth century the concept of the ‘battleship’ as the most powerful warship afloat was widespread. Some nations used related terms: the Germans, for instance, called their equivalent vessels Linienschiffe (‘line-ships’).
In this age of rapid technical change, however, terminology had trouble keeping up: the all-big-gun battleships that emerged in the first decade of the twentieth century became known as ‘dreadnoughts’ after the first British example, HMS Dreadnought. Larger types became ‘super-dreadnoughts’. Older battleships, in turn, became ‘pre-dreadnoughts’. It was temporary; the term ‘dreadnought’ fell out of use after the First World War, and such vessels again became ‘battleships’ and, on occasion, ‘fast battleships’.

USS Texas in trouble..

I ran across this article while surfing around.  I really hope they can pull it together and save the ship.  There ain't any WWI Dreadnough around anymore.  Most of the American ones were either used as target ships for "Operation Crossroads" because it was quicker to blow them up rather than scrap or put the ships in a museum and others were scrapped.  We were drawing down after WWII and quickly demobilizing back to a peacetime military and we had a bunch of "Modern" ships from WWII so the older ships were expended.  USS Texas was spared such a fate as was the USS Olympia which was Admiral Dewey's flagship at the battle of Manila( where Old NFO manned the tiller and stood resolutely by, but that is another story) and IJN Mikasa the only pre-Dreadnough battleship left in the world.  The USS Texas is tangible link to our past and it showed when men of Iron sailed on ships of steel.  Tradition is important to anybody with a martial interest, it gives the Soldiers and Sailors today a link to the past and it reaffirms their belief in themselves and their country.  I keep thinking if I ever scored the lottery, I would blow a huge chunk of my fortune to save those ships.

 

Battleship Texas BB35 is a New York-class battleship that has the distinction of having served in both World War I and World War II. The 104-year-old ship is facing possibly its toughest battle as it fights a two front war against time and budgetary constraints.

The aging battleship is currently closed to the public as it undergoes repairs. Corrosion has caused leaks in the hull of the last remaining WWI dreadnought. Officials have stated that they are pumping 300,000 gallons of water out of the hull every day.

A heavy German coast artillery shell falls between Texas (in the background) and Arkansas while the two battleships were engaging Battery Hamburg during the battle of Cherbourg, France, 25 June 1944

The state of Texas had been paying for maintenance on the ship but it has announced that it will no longer do so after paying $35 million to have the ship floated to a shipyard to undergo the repairs.
This means that the ship will have to support itself based on admission fees. That would require 300,000 people to pay to visit it each year in order to fund its own maintenance costs. Currently, the ship is berthed by the San Jacinto Battle Monument in La Porte, Texas. That site does not get enough visitors to keep the ship afloat.

The tale of American exploits during WWI and WWII will not be complete without mention of Texas BB 35

Galveston has emerged as a front runner to provide a home for the Texas. They have two locations that could take the battleship, though both have problems which need to be addressed before the ship could dock there. These findings are from a citizen-led committee’s report which provides recommendations on where the ship could be berthed.
Seawolf Park on Pelican Island and Pier 21 located on Galveston’s harbor are the two locations identified in the report.

A veteran of two world wars

Bruce Bramlett, executive director of the Battleship Texas Foundation, says that the ship needs to find a spot with higher visitation which would rule Seawolf Park out in his mind. “That would be a worse location that what we’re in,” he said.
Seawolf Park currently sees 80,000 visitors per year according to park managers for the Galveston. This is not nearly enough to support the Texas. But Galveston Island Convention & Visitors Bureau Chief Tourism Officer, Michael Woody, believes that the number would rise with the Texas berthed there.

Having the historic ship located in Seawolf Park, which already hosts the USS Cavalla and the USS Stewart, would provide opportunities for education programs, school trips, corporate events and even increase leisure traffic at the park.
Pier 21 has the benefit of being near downtown and cruise ship traffic. This would provide the necessary numbers to support the ship. But having the battleship docked there would exacerbate parking and crowding issues already being experienced at the pier.
Also, the berth at Pier 21 is 510 feet long but the Texas is 560 feet long. With budgetary constraints, the city may simply not be able to afford the work required to bring the Texas to that site.
The city officials have stated that they will require more information before deciding if they want to make a bid for hosting the Texas.
Representative Mayes Middleton is on the committee researching locations in Galveston says that the bottom line is whether Galveston has the number of visitors required to support the Texas. He says that since the ship needs 300,000 visitors each year and Galveston sees over 7 million tourists every year, the numbers aren’t a problem.
The committee is expecting to release the full report along with its recommendations this month.
Meanwhile, the Battleship Texas Foundation, which is responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the Texas, is pushing for the ship to be placed in a dry berth. The constant contact with salt water has weakened the hull of the ship and caused many leaks.
Work on building the Texas began in 1910.  After serving in both world wars, the Texas was placed under the care of the Battleship Texas Commission in 1947. The Texas became one of the first museum ships in the US. In 1983, leadership of the Texas was transferred to the Texas Park and Wildlife department. At that time, a survey showed that the watertight seal. The ship was closed to the public for nearly two years while repairs were made.
In 2010, a new leak led to the ship sinking 2-3 feet. In 2012, 30 new leaks were discovered. The ship was once again repaired and reopened to the public.
The Battle Ship Commission would like to see the ship placed in a dry berth, out of the water. Then they could stop spending money on repairs. But getting the Texas out of the water will cost $40 million. The foundation is willing to raise part of the money but seeking assurance from the government that they will provide the rest.

Battleship or Battlecruiser...?

I shamelessly cribbed this from the internet.   I do have a fascination with Battleships, I have posted about this kind of stuff a lot.  Kinda funny for an Army guy I suppose.  I still believe that the Navy would be smart to recommission the North Carolina Class Battleships, the total hours on the hulls are a lot lower than most of the ships in the fleet now.   I added some pics to the article and a blurp about the "Montana Class Battleships" at the bottom of the article.


On the surface, history can appear a rigid, unmoving thing. That once something is historically established, it remains that way forever. However, the truth of the matter is that history is largely pliable. The more blurry facts can be easily be bent to support a particular view. A small, but popular opinion is that the Iowa class battleships of the US Navy could be considered battlecruisers. What are battlecruisers and why would anybody think the Iowa class is like them? I will look at the rationale for this opinion and refine the lines that separate battleship from battlecruiser. With a bit of digging, we will find out whether we need to refer to these dreadnaughts as the Iowa class battlecruisers from now on.

Iowa Class

Why would the Iowa class be considered Battlecruisers?

 

1) Their armor was unable to withstand the firepower of their own guns.
2) They sacrificed armor to achieve higher speeds.
It is true that these ships were exceedingly fast and that armor wise they were a departure from traditional practice. However, is this enough to brand them as battlecruisers? To compare, let us examine the concept behind battlecruisers and see what made them different from battleships.

What Are Battlecruisers?

HMS Hood

HMS Hood, the largest battlecruiser ever built. Her weak protection became her undoing in her famous fight against the battleship Bismarck.
Battlecruisers were a short-lived vessel only used during the first half of the 20th century. They were conceived on the idea that faster capital ships would be both more effective and more flexible than the slower battleships in combat. Battlecruisers were designed to fulfill the following criteria:

• Use their superior speed to chase down slower vessels.
• Outgun weaker vessels while being able to outrun more powerful ones.
• Harass enemy shipping lines and disrupt trade.
• Support the main fleet by defending against cruisers.

To achieve these objectives, battlecruisers were designed for maximum speed. They achieved this speed by sacrificing armor, firepower, or a combination of the two. For the most part, battlecruisers were designed for speeds greater than 25 knots while the slower battleships were only capable of 21 knots.
At first, battlecruisers were fairly effective when deployed in the manner in which they were intended. The Battles of Heligoland Bight and the Falkland Islands were instances of battlecruisers fulfilling their roles and destroying enemy cruisers. However, as the war progressed, battlecruisers became increasingly less useful. Coordinated actions by large fleets ensured that they were only as fast as he slowest vessels involved. In latter engagements like the battle of Jutland, they fared poorly when forced to directly engage the more heavily armored battleships.


To rectify these weaknesses, cruisers became increasingly armored to the point that they were almost battleships. On the other hand, battleships were becoming faster, to the point that newer designs were as fast as battlecruisers. These advances caused the line between battleship and battlecruiser to blur.

Are the Iowa Class actually Battlecruisers?

At first glance the Iowa class vessels were very similar to battlecruisers. They were directly designed to hunt down and destroy weaker ships such as the Kongo Class battleships. They were lightly armored compared to their displacement, especially compared to previous US battleships. However, they also were very different in several important areas. First, lets take a look at some of the arguments listed above.

Their armor was unable to withstand the firepower of their own guns

A Forward Salvo from the Main cannons.

On the subject of a vessel being armored to withstand the firepower of its own guns, this was never a method of classifying battlecruisers.  No ship is armored enough to be completely impervious to its own guns. Even the mighty Yamato was vulnerable to its own guns at certain ranges, but that does not make it a battlecruiser. Most ships are designed to be immune to large caliber shells at certain ranges, normally those that combat is expected to take place. This is what’s known as an immunity zone.

While the Iowa class did have an immunity zone against its own guns, it was smaller than US designers would have preferred. This was largely due to advances in technology. The Iowa class was originally designed to withstand the US Mark 5 2240lb AP shell. The designers were able to create  reasonable zone of immunity from this shell. However, after the designs were largely finished, the Mark 8 2700 “Super Heavy” shell was introduced. This shell offered much greater capability and was thus harder to protect against. When combined with the 16″/50 cannon, the Iowa class had what could be the best naval gun put into service. At long ranges, the cannon was almost equal to the Yamato’s larger 18″ guns. Armoring against this shell would have required a much greater displacement than what the Iowa class offered.
As to the idea that battleships must be armored to resist their own guns, As best as I could tell, this myth arose from the practices of naval designers when creating armor schemes for their warships. Not having access to foreign weapons, they used their own weapons. Thus, they designed their own ships to resist their own guns. It was simply a matter of convenience.

They sacrificed armor to achieve higher speeds

Conning Tower Photo – The heavy 17″ armor used to protect the conning tower of the Iowa class.

This myth is untrue, though it does unveil some rather interesting details.  While the designers never sacrificed armor when creating the Iowa class, they also didn’t go out of their way to add more armor. As stated above, they did work to ensure that the class was armored to withstand its initial shells. However, the preceding South Dakota was sufficiently armored as well. In fact, the armor scheme of the Iowa class was directly based on the South Dakotas with some minor improvements.
While the Iowa class might not have been armored as much as US designers would have preferred, it was still very much a protected battleship. It was designed to engage battleships in direct combat, survive whatever shells came their way, and emerge the victor. This is a stark contrast to the types of combat that typical battlecruisers were to engage in. At the very least, one could make the argument that the Iowa class was a faster model of a preceding battleship.

Conclusions: Battleship or Battlecruiser

Based on design and the intentions of designers, the Iowa class were battleships. They were designed like battleships, they were armored like battleships, and they could certainly fight other battleships. However, I would go so far as to argue that their design was unique. Perhaps a blend of ideas behind both battleships and battlecruisers to a degree.

As battlecruisers gained armor and battleships gained speed, the line separating the vessels blurred. The Iowa class exists in that blurry area. It was a battleship that incorporated some of the doctrine that inspired battlecruisers. Unlike battlecruisers that were designed to chase down and destroy enemy cruisers, the Iowa class was designed with bigger prey in mind. They were designed to hunt down enemy battleships and other large vessels. Unlike battleships, that got faster through the advancement of engine technology, the Iowa class was designed to be fast. They were the only class of battleship that could be considered true fast battleships in that speed was a main goal in their design.
In many ways, the Iowa class took the best features of both battleships and battlecruisers to create a specialized class. The real question is what the Iowa class would have inspired had the age of dreadnaughts not ended when it did. How fast would have subsequent battleships become? Unfortunately, we will never know.  Although the proposed Montana Class Battleships would have given some ideas...

 

Busy week

My son was on fall break so I took some time to head to several places that I thought were "neat"   First we went to visit my brother at Fort Rucker, then headed to the U.S.S. Alabama.  That was a real neat visit, Both of us really enjoyed that trip.  It was awesome actually seeing an actual battleship.  Age wise the ship only had an operational life of 4 years.   I kinda wondered if it would be difficult to bring the ship to operational duty if necessary.

We walked around the ship and saw a bunch of cool  stuff, I will have to find a way to create a link to photobucket or something like that   While we were there, I saw a gentleman doing a book signing , His name is Glenn Frazier, he is a survivor of the Bataan Death March.   He has a website  Here

   Speaking to him, I was humbled, here was a person that lived through something that most people didn't survive and was a pleasure to talk to.  Here was an embodiment of the greatest generation.  I have a copy of his book and finished reading it, now my son is reading it.