Battleship FAQs:


Q: Is a battleship a large armored warship with a main battery consisting of large caliber guns?

A: Yes.

Q: Were battleships the largest and most complex, and hence the most expensive warships of their time?

A: Yes, as a result, the value of investment in battleships has always been contested.

Q: Was a battleship to sweep the enemy from the seas?

A: Yes.

Q: Are battleships restricted to skirmishes?

A: Yes.

Q: Was a battleship a potential threat to any convoy escorted by any vessels other than capital ships?

A: Yes.

Q: Were battleships increasingly vulnerable to much smaller?

A: Yes, and cheaper weapons: initially the torpedo and the naval mine, and later aircraft and the guided missile.

Q: Was a battleship the most powerful type of warship?

A: Yes, and a fleet of battleships was considered vital for any nation that desired to maintain command of the sea.

Q: Were battleships a symbol of naval dominance and national might?

A: Yes, and for decades the battleship was a major factor in both diplomacy and military strategy.

Q: Was a battleship coined around 1794 and is a contraction of the phrase line-of-battle ship?

A: Yes, and the dominant wooden warship during the Age of Sail.

Q: Are battleships not only seen as vital to naval power?

A: Yes, but also, as with nuclear weapons after WWII, represented a nation's standing in the world.

Q: Were battleships rarely deployed without a protective screen of destroyers?

A: Yes.

Q: Were battleships retained by the United States Navy into the Cold War for fire support purposes before being stricken from the U.S?

A: Yes, Naval Vessel Register in the 2000s.

Q: Were battleships of little strategic importance?

A: Yes.

Q: Were battleships support ships in carrier battle groups?

A: Yes, or led their own battleship battle group.

Q: Was a battleship commissioned after the war?

A: Yes, and HMS Vanguard.

Q: Was a battleship significant?

A: Yes.

Q: Were battleships either absent or overshadowed as carriers launched wave after wave of planes into the attack at a range of hundreds of miles?

A: Yes.

Q: Were battleships sunk or sinking?

A: Yes, and with the rest damaged.

Q: Were battleships the embodiment of sea power?

A: Yes.

Q: Were battleships launched in 1919–39 than in 1905–14?

A: Yes.

Q: Were battleships Iraqi shore based surface-to-surface missiles?

A: Yes, Missouri was targeted by two Iraqi Silkworm missiles, with one missing and another being intercepted by the British destroyer HMS Gloucester.

Q: Are battleships in support of the amphibious assault on Gallipoli?

A: Yes.

Q: Was a battleship equally irrelevant in the face of a nuclear attack as tactical missiles with a range of 100 kilometres or more could be mounted on the Soviet Kildin-class destroyer and Whiskey-class submarines?

A: Yes.

Q: Were battleships finally stricken from the U.S?

A: Yes, Naval Vessel Register in 2006.

Q: Were battleships never intended for anti-submarine warfare?

A: Yes, and there was one instance of a submarine being sunk by a dreadnought battleship.

Q: Are battleships 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""?

A: Yes, The Jeune École school of thought of the 1870s and 1880s sought alternatives to the crippling expense and debatable utility of a conventional battlefleet.