Destroy the Battleships

By the end of WWII, it is noted that the era of the battleship was largely over, as very few battleships continued to serve during the post war era. With a POD of September 1, 1939, what is the most possible number of battleships and battlecruisers deployed by the Allies and Axis powers during World War II that can sunk or destroyed by the end of the war? Would any particular sinking have a significant impact on this alternate WWII? How would each warship be sunk? Conversions to something such as aircraft carriers, unrealistic scuttling, and the sinking of pre-war museum ships don't count.

The stipulation is WWII must end more or less the same way as OTL (unconditional surrenders of Germany and Japan, surrender of Italy) by September 1, 1946.

Note: TS stands for training ship. They have been added because they are battleship hulls and they make things interesting.

For reference:

USA: 4-6 Iowa, 2-3 Alaska, 4 South Dakota, 2 North Carolina, 3 Colorado, 3 New Mexico, 2 Tennessee, 2 Pennsylvania, 2 Nevada, 2 New York, 1 Wyoming, TS Utah, and TS Wyoming.

Great Britain: HMS Vanguard, 5 KGV, 2 Nelson, 5 Queen Elizabeth, 5 Revenge, 2 Renown, 1 Hood, TS Iron Duke.

Japan: 2 Yamato, 2 Nagato, 2 Ise, 2 Fuso, 4 Kongo.

France: 2 Richelieu, 2 Dunkerque, 3 Courbet, 3 Bretagne.

Italy: 3 Vittorio Vento, 2 Caio Duilio, 2 Andrea Doria.

Germany: 2 Bismarck, 2 Scharnhorst, 2 Deustchland (pre-dreadnought).

Soviet Union: 3 Gangut.

Argentina: 2 Rivadaria.

Brazil: 2 Minas Gerais.

Greece: 2 TS Mississippi (Kilkis and Lemnos).

Chile: 1 Almirante Latorre.

Turkey: 1 Yavuz Sultan Selim.

If I missed something, please let me know.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, I do not see a way without some hand-wavium for the Allies to loose all their BBs. You may be able to make an argument for or one or two here and there but in general the Axis couldn't maintain sufficient air and sea power late enough in the war to get them. Take the Iowa's, for example. By the time Missouri and Wisconsin we're in action the IJN was completely Combat Ineffective and I just can't think of a plausible way they could put the Iowa's at risk. The same applies to Vanguard, as well.
 
Maybe you can have most be scuttled because of some really court-martial type bad decisions by its captain. But other than that no real logical way to make it happen.
 

hipper

Banned
During World War Two, the aircraft carrier surpassed the battleships as the primary capital ship. It was definitively proved that battleships were very vulnerable to air power and submarines. With a POD of September 1, 1939, how plausible would it be to have every battleship and battlecruiser deployed by the Allies and Axis powers during World War II be sunk or destroyed by the end of the war? Would any particular sinking have a significant impact on this alternate WWII? How would each warship be sunk? Conversions to something such as aircraft carriers, unrealistic scuttling, and the sinking of pre-war museum ships don't count.
Battleships were not replaced as capital ships because they were vulnerable to aircraft and submarines, the aircraft carriers that replaced them were even more vulnerable, Aircraft carriers were more capable ships to attack the enemy, mainly due to the range they could carry out attacks at. However they had significant problems in night and bad weather, Scharnhorst in her last action was immune to attack by aircraft for example.

The OP is completely implausible as it requires some new means of attacking ships to be developed. Modern nuclear submarines or supersonic AGMs would be required to accomplish the task.
 
During World War Two, the aircraft carrier surpassed the battleships as the primary capital ship. It was definitively proved that battleships were very vulnerable to air power and submarines.

Technically, what made aircraft carriers less vulnerable to air attack and submarines wasn't their construction, in comparison with battleships. If anything, in themselves they were more vulnerable. What made them more resistant was the naval aircraft their carried. Because, when everything went well, they intercepted enemy aircraft and submarines way out of range.
IOW, aircraft carriers, by carrying those aircraft, could equally well make other warships they accompanied, such as battleship, more resistant to attack, too.


Argentina: 2 Rivaderia.



Greece: 2 Mississippi (Kilkis and Lemnos).



If I missed something, please let me know.

I think you'll find that Argentina's battleships were called the Rivadavia class and that the Greek battleships deserve the "training ship" definition.
 
I reedited the original post. The question is now the following: most number of battleships and battlecruisers that can be sunk during WWII. Also, I redited the text to say the era of the battleship largely ended by the end of 1945.
 
Generally, you will have to use the usual methods until Fritz-X. You wouldn't get an overly unrealistic ATL if you took some of the near-misses in the early war and turn them into the real thing; and you could easily make the battleships' enemies more lethal without, again, bending realism too much. Just imagine if everyone had good torpedoes and good torpedo bombers to start with; it's not that outlandish and it would mean something early in the war.

With Fritz-X and its relatives, you should just have the Germans build and use more. That adds to the body count.

Additionally, if the body count is really quite higher in this ATL than in OTL, some of the wartime repairs might not happen, which would again make the final tally worse. If battleships die like flies and everyone is busy building carriers, then maybe the British just scrap the Queen Elizabeth, for instance.

All that said, you might end up credibly increasing that final tally, but sinking them all? That wouldn't be credible.
 
Generally, you will have to use the usual methods until Fritz-X.

The problem with Fritz-X is the same as the Okha, until you reach the drop zone the carrier aircraft is vulnerable. And unlike the Okha the launching bomber has to guide the Fritz-X in. You really need something self-guided so the carrier aircraft can turn around after launch. So expect a few more sinkings but nothing that will decimate the fleets...
 
Maybe have the entire US and British Pacific Fleets in 1945 in Ulithi and a nuke is accidentally detonated there?
Probably wouldn't sink all of the BBs but would certainly irradiate them to the point unusability so they would likely end up being abandoned and scuttled in deep water after the war. I guess, in the end the result is that same: they are no longer active/effective fighting ships at the end of the war.
 
The problem with Fritz-X is the same as the Okha, until you reach the drop zone the carrier aircraft is vulnerable. And unlike the Okha the launching bomber has to guide the Fritz-X in. You really need something self-guided so the carrier aircraft can turn around after launch. So expect a few more sinkings but nothing that will decimate the fleets...

Sure! Fritz-X, and essentially anything, is no end-of-the-world killer, they all had their vulnerabilities and drawbacks. I'm just saying that if the Germans build x5 of those, we might end up seeing an additional sinking or two of battleships, even if lots of Luftwaffe bombers go down achieving that.
 
No need to reach for a single catastrophic resolution

minor PODs can seriously thin out the crop without actually changing the course of the war much
(which only goes to show how irrelevant the BB really was)

In no particular order:

QE and Valiant are worse hurt in Alex ... both CTL
The torpedoes that hit Nelson in '39 actually explode
Bismark finishes off PoW (before being lost itself)
(and because of that) KGV is with Force Z
Warspite is hit by two Fritzes and sinks
Ramilles sunk at Diego Saurez not just badly damaged
Malaya sunk in a dogfight with the Twins (damages G badly enough so he is lost as well)

All the scrap iron at Pearl on Dec 8 is correctly judged unfit .. so more scrap in the 40's.
(replacement BBs are planned and started but none extra ready by VJ day ... more work for the scrappers in the 50s)
Washington eats a pair of long lances at Guadalcanal and has to be abandoned
leaving Kirishima and support to finish off South Dakota


The planned number Stringbags at Taranto, (e.g Eagle avoids her fuel contamination)
Duilio and Littorio as well as Cavour are CTL (or at least not repaired by 1943 when Italy changes sides)
FritzXs do better again against the surrender fleet (Littorio already gone so fewer targets) Vittorio Veneto lost as well as Roma

British willing to go all out vs Vichy
Strasbourg, Provence and Dunkerque finished off at Mers (as well as Bretagne)
Richelieu completely wrecked in Menace

Except where mentioned Axis ships go down as OTL
 
Last edited:
Great list. I have a few ideas to cut down the list further.

Nagato is sunk at Yukosuka in 1945.

North Carolina is also sunk by I-19 along with USS Wasp and USS O'Brien.

In place of Iowa (because it was not completed), a South Dakota battleship takes FDR to Algiers in 1943 and takes a torpedo or two from a certain USN destroyer and is abandoned?

Jean Bart is completely wrecked during Operation Torch.

Pennsylvania, presumably the only salvageable battleship after Pearl Harbor, sinks as a result of torpedo damage in 1945.

Duke of York (or another KGV) is sunk in a mutually fatal engagement with either Tirpitz or Scharnhorst due to battle damage and rough seas in the Arctic.

Royal Soverign is sunk in Soviet service by German U-boat (U-711) or hits a mine in similar fashion as Guilio Cesare did in OTL (depending on who you ask).

Thoughts?
 
Technically, what made aircraft carriers less vulnerable to air attack and submarines wasn't their construction, in comparison with battleships. If anything, in themselves they were more vulnerable. What made them more resistant was the naval aircraft their carried.

Of course, a carrier without planes is like a battleship without ammo. If you compare the ships themselves some of the battleships are actually better equipped against air attack than most carriers were since they had more room for AA.

But thats not the point.
 
Top