# Last of the Battleships?



## Thorlifter (Apr 21, 2014)

Technology makes weapons obsolete, this we understand. After all, the dive bomber only lasted about 10 years. So with today's technology, is the role of the battleship forever gone?


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 21, 2014)

Yep.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 21, 2014)

Battleships, in this day and age, are not really cost-effective as a means of "force projection" regarding their size in comparison to an Aircraft carrier.

Ton for ton, a carrier can do much more, however, there is nothing like the sight and sound of a Battlewagon hurling 16" shells at a target, digging basements one shell at a time.

You just can't get that kind of show from jets striking a target.

Except for an A-10

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thorlifter (Apr 21, 2014)

buffnut453 said:


> Yep.



Not much to argue there!


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 21, 2014)

Unfortunately....


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 21, 2014)

Thorlifter said:


> Not much to argue there!



As you well know, I am capable of going on...and on...and on (ad nauseam!). So this time I thought I'd keep it short and to the point!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RpR (Apr 21, 2014)

A battleship as shown in Iraq can deliver huge firepower miles inland but as one poster said the cost is high and service men who know how to make a battleship function are all but extinct.

When they brought them back before they had to make special regs. to allow persons to rejoin the military who under normal circumstances could not.

The battleships greatest forte beyond firepower was/is the incredible difficulty it takes to sink one.
Aircraft carriers while probably the hardest to sink among new ships, are not even remotely as difficult to sink as a battleship.
Do a net search on military tests on how hard it is to sink a battleship and you will be amazed.

The question rather than obsolete would be what purpose are you going to use it for?
For bombardment up to approx. 30 miles inland, it can deliver far more firepower than aircraft.
Nowadays beyond the above, it would make a better protection screen for carriers than the modern ships that are really tin-cans as far as un-sinkability is concerned but once again, that would be an extreme expense and too many people in Washington want the latest digital gizmo that an EMP can make useless instantly rather than a vesslethan even though it would be mostly immune to an EMP is expensive to keep running.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Apr 21, 2014)

I remember hearing that an Exoset missle would bearly scratch the paint on one of those battlewagons.


----------



## kettbo (Apr 21, 2014)

staying power aircraft do not have
firepower you need during an opposed landing
capability to remove the toughest target(s)
We have quite few gun tubes lying around, even a 2-turret beast with a large Vertical Launch bin could be made IF there was will


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 22, 2014)

Capt. Vick said:


> I remember hearing that an Exoset missle would bearly scratch the paint on one of those battlewagons.


The beltline armor is impressive on the Iowa class battlewagons, even moreso on the older BBs. That was when they were still designing them to survive a direct slug-fest. But the age of Naval airpower exposed their Achilles heel...their deck armor couldn't handle direct air bombardment.

Even the mighty Yamoto couldn't survive that type of attack. God only knows what would have happened if she escaped the air attacks and got into range of the U.S. fleet...

It would not have been a good day for those down range of her 18 inch guns...

(IJN Yamato's belt armor = 16"/410mm - USS New Jersey's belt armor = 12.1"/310mm)


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 22, 2014)

Despite their advantages, battleships are not cost effective and only very wealthy nations can afford carriers. Vessels the size of frigates and destroyers populate the world's navies because a reasonable amount of firepower, including guided missiles and electronic wizardry can be incorporated in a small package. On the flip side, a big gun has distinct advantages over guided missiles. it's hard to shoot down or stop at all a plunging shell. Shells can do as much damage to another warship or ground target as your average ship launched guided missile, and are much cheaper to produce and more of them can be carried aboard.

Bearing this in mind, perhaps naval architects might investigate a destroyer or cruiser size vessel armed with a modernised heavy gun turret? A Ticonderoga Class cruiser hull fitted with a triple six in gun turret forward? Perhaps something larger maybe? A single 12 in or 15 in gun mounted monitor style on a generic hull?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Apr 22, 2014)

When the Iowa's were last reactivated one of the proposals was to remove the aft turret and replace it with a flight deck (a'la IJSN Ise) with Harriers stationed on it. This I could see it still having a useful role


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 22, 2014)

In the modern age, it's hard to say just what will work and what won't. It would be virtually impossible to intercept a 16" shell that's traveling over 2,500 fps (762mps).

Perhaps I'm "old school" but in my opinion, nothing tells the enemy just how much you love them more than a 2,700 pound hug.

Except maybe two. Or three. Yes, three certainly would do it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Apr 22, 2014)

The battlecruiser concept is very much alive, albeit in a highly modified form. The russian Kirov class "cruiser" is of a size and power that puts it in the clas of "battlecruiser". There are other examples.

These ships are no longer the final arbiters of seapower like they were at the time of Jutland, but they are still very ppowerful warships, and certainly in the class of a capital warship.

Kirov-class battlecruiser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


whilst the US are building these ships....

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/1199432702df


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 25, 2014)

The Kirovs are certainly formidable vessels, but instead of the vertical launch silos forward, what about a big gun turret? The role of big guns could be re-introduced, although guided missiles could have more range - will have to do some reading to confirm this. Nevertheless, guns as main armament haven't disappeared from warships yet, signifying that they still are effective.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Apr 25, 2014)

....and the rounds are a heck of a lot cheaper.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 25, 2014)

Dave, take a look at this:

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/s-file/s511-34a.jpg

And this:

http://steelnavy.com/Nichimo New Jersey Battlecarrier.htm


----------



## Thorlifter (Apr 25, 2014)

You know, that's not a horrible idea. An aircraft carrier is certainly a big enough platform to handle a couple double or triple 16" turrets. But here is the downside as I see it. For ship to ship, you certainly don't want your aircraft carrier slugging it out with smaller, less expensive vessels. Also, you probably don't want it that close to shore to do a bombardment.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Apr 25, 2014)

Gun armament would probably need to consider the new Rail Gun technology currently being developed. I dont know a lot about it, but the bits that i have heard, these new weapons are absolutely awesome.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 25, 2014)

Problem with hybrids in this day and age is the same as the pure battleship or aircraft carrier, expense. The bean counters would never allow it. Only the USA could afford them, or maybe the Chinese. Possibly the most cost effective carrier at least, was the Harrier carrier.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 25, 2014)

The Japanese did have Barrleship hybrids (Ise class) that combined a form of battleship and carrier. Though it could launch aircraft, it wasn't able to recover them...but the idea was a good one.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 25, 2014)

Yep, the British also redrew their plans for the unbuilt Lion class battleships as hybrids too, but I was talking about these days. The Ise was more like a seaplane carrier, to be specific, rather than a true battleship carrier hybrid, not having a landing deck 'n all. Rather like the first incarnation of Furious, fitted with a flying off deck forward and its 18-inch turret aft, without any landing facilities, although Dunning did land on the launch deck while the ship was in this configuration.


----------



## gjs238 (Apr 26, 2014)

RE: Hybrid - How much punishment would the carrier half be able to withstand?


----------



## Glider (Apr 26, 2014)

I served on HMS Tiger which was a hybrid with 6in guns and the helicopters on the rear. The general opinion was that it was worlds most expensive way of getting four Seakings to sea. 

What exactly are you going to use the 16in guns for? Shore bombardment which by definition will be in range of the shore. Do you really want carriers say 20 miles off shore, Of course not.

The Tiger did have at least the 6in which was a very effective AA gun for self defence in an age where the AA missiles tended to be far less reliable in action than on paper.

If you are going to carry heavy BB guns then you have to reckon taking hits and carriers are lousy at taking hits. After all one deck hit and you don't have a functioning carrier, just a large sitting duck asking to get shot at.

The best compromise is a modern 6in gun capable of being mounted on frigates. A number of these have been designed to replace the 4.5/5 in guns but not repeat not on a carrier.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Apr 26, 2014)

I think it would be an awesome replacement for the current amphibious assault ships.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 20, 2014)

My personal opinion is that the Battleship was the most attractive kind of warship ever built. That and Battlecruisers of course....

The problem though is that although the gun projectiles are relatively inexpensive, the guns themselves are not and I don't know that anyone is capable of building them any more. They are, in fact, the longest run item in the construction of a new battleship which is why the HMS Dreadnought stole the guns from other ships then under construction and the HMS Vanguard re used the guns and turrets from older ships. In service, they also don't last very long: A couple hundred rounds from new and the gun is finished and needs new barrel or re lined.

Pity though, they were elegant ships.

- Ivan.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 20, 2014)

The is not sight more awesome than the front view of a line of battleships/battle cruisers.


----------



## Capt. Vick (May 20, 2014)

True...


----------



## Garyt (May 20, 2014)

> But the age of Naval airpower exposed their Achilles heel...their deck armor couldn't handle direct air bombardment.
> 
> Even the mighty Yamoto couldn't survive that type of attack. God only knows what would have happened if she escaped the air attacks and got into range of the U.S. fleet...



It's not really the deck armor that was the issue. Neither the Musahi or the Yamato would have been sunk by bomb damage. The Deck of these ships was certainly proof against even 1760 pound AP bombs. Musahi may have had some scaling causing damage in her engine room - and near misses could be damaging - but the real threat from the air was torpedoes.

The physics of the explosion detonating underwater makes the torpedo for more damaging than a surface explosion. 

I'd think that the real danger to battleships now would be torpedoes that detonate under the ship, as these would miss both any anti-torpedo blister and the lower armor belt, onlt the double bottom would provide any type of protection, and that would not be much.

I'd think if battleships would ever become remotely common again (won't happen, just a what if), the methods to attack them would be a cruise missile style torpedo, airborne to a certain point then plunging into the water to avoid the anti-missile defenses.

The other weapon used against a battleship could be a "rail gun", I know a 6" gun is in service, though I'm not sure how damaging it would be to a battleship even given it's hyper velocity. Though as it's hitting the deck armor, it might have a chance. 7.5" of deck armor is still awful tough though.


----------



## Marcel (May 21, 2014)

I love battleships, just visited the USS New Jersey with Njaco, but I think WW2 clearly showed the vulnerability of these big battle ships. Missiles made big guns obsolete as they have much more range. By the time your battleship closed in enough to use the big ones, the enemy has had all the time in the world to shoot all his missiles at you. Afaik guns on ships are mainly used nowadays as last defence AAA or against pirates. While I would love to see this bastards being shot at by a 40 cm round, I don't think it's worth the costs.


----------



## parsifal (May 21, 2014)

> I'd think if battleships would ever become remotely common again (won't happen, just a what if), the methods to attack them would be a cruise missile style torpedo, airborne to a certain point then plunging into the water to avoid the anti-missile defenses.



The American Standard SSM has the equivalent destructive power and penetration, roughly speaking, of an 8 inch shell. But its dealy effect is that it uses high speed plunging fire effects to make it many times more deadly in reality, because the tractory is steeper than a standard ballistic shell. 



> The other weapon used against a battleship could be a "rail gun", I know a 6" gun is in service, though I'm not sure how damaging it would be to a battleship even given it's hyper velocity. Though as it's hitting the deck armor, it might have a chance. 7.5" of deck armor is still awful tough though


.

This article outlines the increadible destructive potential of the new rail 


US Navy unveils rail gun that fires at seven times speed of sound | News.com.au

basically a range of 100 miles, and a penetration of standard US rolled plate of about 6.5 inches. thats for a destroyer sized weapon however. No reason why a larger weapon could not be developed


----------



## nuuumannn (May 21, 2014)

This photo is my favourite of Furious, in its first incarnation as a hybrid seaplane carrier with its 46 cm gun. Taken not long after the ship joined the fleet in 1917, men alongside the turret provide scale.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 21, 2014)

vikingBerserker said:


> The is not sight more awesome than the front view of a line of battleships/battle cruisers.


Lingayan Gulf, Luzon, January 1945...

In order of appearance:
BB38 - USS Pennsylvania
BB45 - USS Colorado
CA28 - USS Louisville
CA33 - USS Portland
CL56 - USS Columbia


----------



## Garyt (May 21, 2014)

> Missiles made big guns obsolete as they have much more range.



Take a look at the 6" rail gun. Because of the KE generated by their velocity, they don't even need an explosive filler or fuse. They generate KE in much the same manner as a meteor from space. And their range is about 450 km.


----------



## kettbo (May 21, 2014)

aircraft carriers are also vulnerable to torpedoes detonating under the hull, yet we build them!

I'd be interested to see the cost of a CVN vs a modern-type BB/BC

ships do not go out alone so everybody gets to take part in the shower of incoming missiles. plenty of room on a larger hull for lots of launchers or VLS to help defeat the incoming threat. plus plenty of room for several close-in/last resort weapons. unlike most, a capital ship can take some of these hits. 

as I mentioned, 16" gun tubes are in stock, likely others. And if needed new guns, we could make them (or have China or a NAFTA partner make them, LOL).
The 'problem' with trying to bombard something with a rail gun it that it is a flat-shooter, hard to hit targets that you cannot engage by line of sight. (troops in a trench are hard to get-at with a .50 cal. but you can sure get right after them with the Mk 19 and the looping trajectory)


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 21, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> Lingayan Gulf, Luzon, January 1945...
> 
> In order of appearance:
> BB38 - USS Pennsylvania
> ...



That's what I'm talking about!


----------



## Njaco (May 21, 2014)

Marcel said:


> I love battleships, just visited the USS New Jersey with Njaco, but I think WW2 clearly showed the vulnerability of these big battle ships. Missiles made big guns obsolete as they have much more range. By the time your battleship closed in enough to use the big ones, the enemy has had all the time in the world to shoot all his missiles at you. Afaik guns on ships are mainly used nowadays as last defence AAA or against pirates. While I would love to see this bastards being shot at by a 40 cm round, I don't think it's worth the costs.



BB-62 USS New Jersey and Marcel!

.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Garyt (May 21, 2014)

> The 'problem' with trying to bombard something with a rail gun it that it is a flat-shooter, hard to hit targets that you cannot engage by line of sight. (troops in a trench are hard to get-at with a .50 cal. but you can sure get right after them with the Mk 19 and the looping trajectory)



The rail gun is definitely not a flat shooter, at least not the one here:
USA Electromagnetic Rail Gun



> aircraft carriers are also vulnerable to torpedoes detonating under the hull, yet we build them!



Well, first of all and most importantly, the Carrier is a completely different weapons platform. The battleship as a weapon platform is largely outmoded.

But for the carriers, they are protected by their task force. They have screens to protect them from surface, submarine and aerial threats.

For a Battleship this would not make much sense - if it is designed to attack it's targets with it's guns, it is outranged by about everything else, unlike in it's heyday, when it outranged about anything out there.

My biggest concern for a carrier would be standoff missiles, and the "stand off" range, and how this fits within or outside of the carriers defensive screen. Missiles definitely damage the carrier as it does not have the armor of a battleship, torpedoes could be damaging as well. The question is whether the carrier's screen can neutralize these threats prior to them getting in attack range.

Most of what I see with modern torpedoes is that they are designed for anti-sub usage. Then we have missiles designed for anti-surface. Why there are not torpedoes designed for anti-surface I am not sure (That is other than anti-surface torpedoes used by subs of course, but they have stand off anti surface missiles as well).

I'm guessing that it is tough to design a torpedo that can deliver the same warhead as a missile without weighing much more than a standard missile. But one would think a torpedo would have a better chance of striking home, being able to avoid the 20mm phalanxes and other anti missile defenses, not sure if there are such defenses against torpedoes.

But the fact that modern naval vessels carry very little armor make HE missiles much more effective.

What also really skews the current naval "arms race" is that we only have one real naval power. Sure there are other navies, but none that would compete with the US in Battleships, Carriers, or really other capital vessels. At least not anywhere near to the 53 ratio decided upon by the Washington treaty of 1922


----------



## GrauGeist (May 21, 2014)

The Iowa class battleships were surrounded by a support group like the carriers and they weren't just drug out of mothballs and put back to sea, they were modernized. This included upgraded electonics warfare capability and enhanced targeting/fire control for the barreled weapons. In addition, they received modernized defensive/offensive weapon upfits.

This included: 
(4) MK 141 quad cell launchers for 16 AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles
(8) Armored Box Launcher mounts for 32 BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles
(4) Phalanx Gatling guns
They were also equipped with 40mm grenade launchers as well as 25mm chain-guns to ward off attackers in a close quarter bartle.

During the Gulf War, the Missouri came under attack by anti-shipping missiles (silkworm), which were intercepted by her support group while she was pounding Iraqi shore positions.

A battleship is not a totally helpless target, just waiting for something to fall out of the sky and sink it. It's a capable weapon platform than can perform a wide range of functions.


----------



## Njaco (May 21, 2014)

While we were on BB-62, we were told that about 58 of the original AA guns and larger were removed to make room for the Tomahawks, etc. 4 times was she refurbished for action.


----------



## Donivanp (May 21, 2014)

USS Alabama and USS Texas


----------



## Njaco (May 21, 2014)

Is that you in the first pic?


Mugshot thread!!!


----------



## Garyt (May 21, 2014)

> The Iowa class battleships were surrounded by a support group like the carriers and they weren't just drug out of mothballs and put back to sea, they were modernized. This included upgraded electonics warfare capability and enhanced targeting/fire control for the barreled weapons. In addition, they received modernized defensive/offensive weapon upfits.
> 
> This included:
> (4) MK 141 quad cell launchers for 16 AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles
> ...




I was aware of the modernizations to the weapons platform of the Missouri. IMO though it was a very expensive platform, it could have been done far cheaper by a number of smaller vessels. And you are putting all these weapons on one ship, which makes the sinking of such a ship a huge morale boost for the enemy.

But my big point - the battleship as sent to war in the Gulf was sent as predominantly a shore bombardment vessel. While this was not unusual for the battleship in WW2, the big difference to me as that in it's heyday, a battleship was sent to attack other surface threats - it was not to be protected from other surface threats by a task force.

Look at WW2 - the battleship, even though past it's prime as a weapon of war was used to defend carriers from air attacks with it's large amount of 5" guns and other anti aircraft batteries. It was also used to either protect the carriers against opposing surface forces, or to seek out opposing surface forces for combat.

In the gulf, the battleship was a shore bombardment weapon protected from opposing surface threats by it's task force.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 21, 2014)

Man, I wish I had my pics of the USS North Carolina!


----------



## GrauGeist (May 21, 2014)

Garyt said:


> In the gulf, the battleship was a shore bombardment weapon protected from opposing surface threats by it's task force.


That's how the majority of U.S. battleships operated in the pacific, during WWII 

In all honesty, the bulk of material a battleship can carry far surpasses a modern missile frigate/cruiser and it can be use offensively against an enemy surface fleet, it's just not been tried in the late 20th century


----------



## Thorlifter (May 22, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> The Iowa class battleships were surrounded by a support group like the carriers and they weren't just drug out of mothballs and put back to sea, they were modernized. This included upgraded electonics warfare capability and enhanced targeting/fire control for the barreled weapons. In addition, they received modernized defensive/offensive weapon upfits.
> 
> This included:
> (4) MK 141 quad cell launchers for 16 AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles
> ...



I think that is a great point GG. If you can have a mobile weapons platform that can fire 16 Harpoons to eliminate threats, plus 32 Tomahawks to destroy targets of value, plus help defend the fleet with AA to 16" weapons, plus provide shore bombardment, that is a versatile, valuable weapon.

Obviously the navy doesn't think so since it is going towards smaller, stealth, less costly ships.


----------



## Glider (May 22, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> The Iowa class battleships were surrounded by a support group like the carriers and they weren't just drug out of mothballs and put back to sea, they were modernized. This included upgraded electonics warfare capability and enhanced targeting/fire control for the barreled weapons. In addition, they received modernized defensive/offensive weapon upfits.
> 
> This included:
> (4) MK 141 quad cell launchers for 16 AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles
> ...



I have to disagree. The Missouri is a vital target that has to depend on its point defence systems and escort to achieve anything and I don't think it can perform many missions. Fire Support is the obvious one but little if anything else and even that is limited to the range of the guns. It isn't an air defence system neither can it protect against submarines, to defend against missile or air attack there are a number of AEGIS type systems that are far more effective and it detracts from the defence of other vessels in the area as she is a huge target that would need protection itself.

The point about the silkworm attack proves the point, she was attacked by a basic simple obsolete missile that almost got through the defences. The silkworm was shot down by an RN Sea Dart which was basically the last throw of the dice as a defence as it wasn't designed as an anti missile weapon, the dedicated CIWS defences having missed the Silkworm in the first place.


----------



## Garyt (May 22, 2014)

duplicate


----------



## Garyt (May 22, 2014)

> The point about the silkworm attack proves the point, she was attacked by a basic simple obsolete missile that almost got through the defences. The silkworm was shot down by an RN Sea Dart which was basically the last throw of the dice as a defence as it wasn't designed as an anti missile weapon, the dedicated CIWS defences having missed the Silkworm in the first place.



Although in defense of the battleship, a silkworm hit is going to do almost nothing to it, at least I mean it's not going to in any way cause it to sink.

The silkworm won't penetrate the armored belt, it may take out a sensor or knock out one of the missile launchers and cause some casualties, but that is about it. 

I think as current weapons are for the most part not designed for taking out battleships, they are reasonably safe. However it would not be too difficult to design weapons designed to take out heavily armored ships - it would just have to be designed.


----------



## Glider (May 23, 2014)

While I agree that one missile will not sink her I wouldn't write off the damage a 395KG warhead with semi armour piercing warhead will do to the upper decks. The main point was that the presence of the BB makes it a target that will need defending while adding little if anything to the defence. This will reduce the defences available to the rest of the fleet.


----------



## parsifal (May 23, 2014)

Cruise missiles have certain enhancers or firepower multiplier effects. Silkworms are notoriously innaccurate. however they aree old and obsolete as well. More modern and capable weapons confer certain inherent advantages . The placements of the missile, it can attack at the waterline, or up high, it can utilize a diving attack using a 600 knot power dive. It can be fired "hot" meaning its tries to maximise the risk of fire, or AP for armour pentration . Short answer is that a missile hit is a far more serious threat than its mere shell weight might suggest


----------



## Garyt (May 23, 2014)

> he main point was that the presence of the BB makes it a target that will need defending while adding little if anything to the defence. This will reduce the defences available to the rest of the fleet.



Yes, Agree 100% here.



> The placements of the missile, it can attack at the waterline, or up high, it can utilize a diving attack using a 600 knot power dive. It can be fired "hot" meaning its tries to maximise the risk of fire, or AP for armour pentration . Short answer is that a missile hit is a far more serious threat than its mere shell weight might suggest



I'm not trying to trivialize the effects of a missile hit. But take a look at the USS Stark - about a 4,000 displacement vessel, no real armor. It was hit by two extocet missiles, that are about 80% the size of the Harpoon missile. It took damage of course, but got the list and fires quickly under control.

Of course a 3600 ton british destroyer (Sheffield) was hit by one and sunk. This was in 1982, ships have gotten a bit more surviveable since then. It was a fire that went out of control.

But look at something like the Musahi - 19 torpedoes, 17 bombs (1000 pounds each, 350-550 pounds of explosives, depending upon type, I.e. SAP, GP, etc/). A Harpoon type missile hits far more accurately than a bomb, but it's destructive power is roughly similar to that of a 500 pound bomb, or a 14 inch artillery shell.

And yes, you can make them more armor piercing, but you do so at the expense of explosive filler. you can hit the deck armor with that pop up you mention, but that's 6-7" of deck armor, still very difficult to penetrate.

Again, not that a battleship is invulnerable, but modern weapons are not design for taking on behemoths with 12"+ Belt armor and 6-7" of deck armor. I forget which navy study this is based upon, but an explosion was considered 3 times as dangerous if the shell/bomb was able to pierce the armor. Most modern weapons don't stand much of a chance of piercing the armor of a battleship like the New Jersey class.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 23, 2014)

Glider said:


> ...The main point was that the presence of the BB makes it a target that will need defending while adding little if anything to the defence. This will reduce the defences available to the rest of the fleet.


Technically, anything from a tugboat to a carrier can be considered a target. Aside from the compliment of aircraft, a carrier can only defend itself so much, being reliant on it's support vessels to aid in defense.



Garyt said:


> But my big point - the battleship as sent to war in the Gulf was sent as predominantly a shore bombardment vessel. While this was not unusual for the battleship in WW2, the big difference to me as that in it's heyday, a battleship was sent to attack other surface threats - it was not to be protected from other surface threats by a task force.


The Battleships in the Gulfwar were deployed in a multi-role mission, one of which did include shore bombardment. They also were prepared to engage hostile shipping, lent support with inland strikes via cruise missiles, etc.



Garyt said:


> Look at WW2 - the battleship, even though past it's prime as a weapon of war was used to defend carriers from air attacks with it's large amount of 5" guns and other anti aircraft batteries. It was also used to either protect the carriers against opposing surface forces, or to seek out opposing surface forces for combat.


On occasion, it fell to the Cruisers to protect the Carriers and there were several examples in the PTO where Cruisers engaged enemy forces acting on behalf of absent Battleships.



Garyt said:


> In the gulf, the battleship was a shore bombardment weapon protected from opposing surface threats by it's task force.


And if you look at photos of Battleships in action during WWII, you'll note a huge presense of Cruisers and Destroyers protecting the Battleships as they pounded Japanese held positions...same is said for the Battleship action during the Korean war.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 23, 2014)

I think the thing to remember is typically the BB would not operate by itself (just like CVs and cruisers but instead is part of an overall weapons system including other ships. 

I think the only weapon currently out there beyond Nukes that could potentially cause serious harm to a BB is the torpedo that creates a vacuum under a ship leaving the weight support by the bow and stern and thus breaking the back. I think with the armor it has it certainly would withstand this better than any other ship, but if it could completely withstand this or not I do not know.


----------



## Thorlifter (May 23, 2014)

I was just about to say that VB. Whatever the largest capital ship is in a task force will almost always be the #1 target. Carriers are the biggest and always the #1 target. The Japanese goal at Pearl Harbor was to eliminate the carriers and battleships. No carriers were there so they hit the battleships because they knew what the American BB's could do to their own task forces.

Fast forward 70 years and yes, maybe battleships are an obsolete weapons system due to technology. But if there is a task force and the largest ship is a cruiser, the enemy will target them for largest loss of life, loss of enemy moral from losing a capital ship, and most likely it would be where the task force commander will be. Your larger vessels REQUIRE support ships, but what those large ships can deliver with offense and defense makes them valuable.

Just my opinion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Garyt (May 24, 2014)

> I think the only weapon currently out there beyond Nukes that could potentially cause serious harm to a BB is the torpedo that creates a vacuum under a ship leaving the weight support by the bow and stern and thus breaking the back. I think with the armor it has it certainly would withstand this better than any other ship, but if it could completely withstand this or not I do not know.



Any torpedo can really do this - it's about getting it to detonate in the right spot, traditional WW2 tordedoes would strike the sides more instead of the bottom, most being contact fused. There were some designed to detonate beneath, though these had a higher failure rate. And a double hull is about the only"armor" one can expect in this area of the ship.

An underwater explosion like a torpedo, mine or HE bomb near miss function differently than above water explosions. The shock wave ruptures the hull and causes flooding. Some ships have armor to protect from this, a lower belt if the torpedo his fairly high or a torpedo blister if it hits low. Generally only fleet carriers or battleships have this type of protection. But because explosion below water act differently on a ship than those above, near miss bombs were more dangerous to heavily armored battleships than direct hits.

The other thing to about underwater explosions - a few layers of a relatively pliable hull with voided space in between function much better in protecting the ship than a rigid thick armor belt. There are plenty of examples to illustrate this.


----------



## Garyt (May 24, 2014)

You know, I decided to look into various US naval vessels and see what is the equivalent of the rearmed Missouri, at least when it comes to missiles. Surprisingly to me, the modern DDG's can outgun a battleship when it comes to missile complement.



> Technically, anything from a tugboat to a carrier can be considered a target. Aside from the compliment of aircraft, a carrier can only defend itself so much, being reliant on it's support vessels to aid in defense.
> 
> 
> The Battleships in the Gulfwar were deployed in a multi-role mission, one of which did include shore bombardment. They also were prepared to engage hostile shipping, lent support with inland strikes via cruise missiles, etc.
> ...



All of this is true, Graugeist.

The point I am trying to make is that every ship has a mission. And the mission of the "Modern Battleship" appears to be primarily shore bombardment. I'd also state that by WW2, particularily in the Pacific, the battleship was on it's way out as an efficient weapon of war. It's big guns were rarely used in an anti-shipping role as designed - they were primarily shore bombardment. The main reason - the aircraft carrier (or more precisely the airplane) was the most effective way of destroying other warships. They outranged the guns on a battleship.

In today's navy, most anti-shipping weapons outrange the Battleship's guns. The biggest culprit is the surface to surface missile, be it Silkworm, Harpoon, Granit, etc. A bit of a comparison between say a Harpoon missile and the 16"/50 BB guns - The Harpoon has a range of about 75 miles to the Battleships 24 or so miles. The Harpoon is far more accurate. The Harpoon has a Bursting charge of 488 pounds vs. About 153 pounds for the Battleships High explosive round. Only advantage I see for the battleship round (other than price) is that it is not subject to countermeasures such as anti-missile missiles, chaff, even the 20mm phalanx at close range. But it has far more accuracy to make up for this. I might add in the defense of the 16" cannon - while it's bursting charge is smaller, it does similar damage as the harpoon due to the kinetic energy of the Shell and it's weight. Bear in mind this is the high explosive round of the 16" gun - the AP round penetrates armor better, but does less actual damage.

The 16" gun (and even smaller cannon like the 5" sported by modern destroyers and cruisers) is much like a modern jets cannon to me. Not useless in the age of missiles, but close iin, cheap, and not subject to countermeasures, but still a secondary weapon certainly to the missiles.

Let's look at the weapons and mission of the rearmed Missouri and their purpose:

(4) MK 141 quad cell launchers for 16 AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles - 16 anti shipping missiles
( Armored Box Launcher mounts for 32 BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles - I look at this as shore bombardment, even though it has a better "reach"
(4) Phalanx Gatling guns - self defense for the most part
They were also equipped with 40mm grenade launchers as well as 25mm chain-guns to ward off attackers in a close quarter bartle. - again, self defense for the most part. Defending yourself from short range attacks from smaller vessels is not functioning in the anti-shipping role - you are a target defending itself.
16" Gun - Predominant use is shore bombardment

The Missouri carried 48 missiles, 16 of which were anti-shipping, the rest were shore bombardment.

Lets compare to the flight II Ashleigh Burke class destroyer. I'll start by saying I think the destroyer class is a bit of a misnomer, it displaces as much as a small to medium sized cruiser. But, it has 96 missiles on board, and these are a combination of Anti-Sub, Anti-air, close defense anti-air (anti missile actually), and anti shipping. You could load up this destroyer with the 16 Harpoons and 32 Tomahawks, and have room for 48 more missiles, allowing it also to function effectively in the anti-sub and anti-air roles. This is using the Mk 41 Vertical Launching System - really any combination of missiles can be used for many roles.

These destroyers also carry 1 rapid fire 5" cannon, 1-2 20mm Phalanx systems, and a 25mm cannon (most likely for fending off small craft like the 25mm chain guns on the Battleship).

They also carry torpedoes, though these are primarily anti-sub weapons.

So with an Ashleigh Burke Class Destroyer, you have double the missile firepower, and some of the close in defense weapons. All you are really losing are the 16" guns, which take up a lot of space and weight, and have inferior range and accuracy to anti-shipping missiles. And the MK 41 VLS was in service by 1986, well in advance of the Gulf War.

So you are really only losing shore bombardment, and gaining better anti-sub and anti-air capability. Now, the 16" guns provide very effective artillery, but does this effective land to land artillery warrant the cost of a battleship?

The 16" guns on the Missouri are indeed quite effective. they have about 10x the Bursting charge of a 155mm shell (a standard army howitzer), though this does not equate to 10x as effective. There are formulas to determine the effective power of an explosion, but what it amounts to is a 16" shell is about 4x as destructive as a 155mm shell. And a 155mm howitzer has about twice the rate of fire, and a range of about 21 miles (varies by version but using specs for the 155/L55 LHM1A2 Rifled Howitzer).

So the 9 gun broadside brings the effects of about 18 155mm howitzers. I'm not sure though if the 16" shells come in as wide of a variety as the 155mm, so we might be understating the effectiveness of the 155mm.

The redeeming factor in my mind that sending a refitted WW2 Battleship out has - really 2 things. The Ashleigh Burke, other than the 16" Guns outguns the Missouri, and it's capable of more missions, such as effective AA and anti-sub. But it cannot take the punishment the Missouri can. A silkworm would in all likelyhood not sink the Ashleigh Burke, but it would could start fires and cause significant damage. Being struck by 4-5 of these could put the vessel in serious straights.

On the other hand, the Missouri could shrug of these attacks pretty easily. Even a lower belt hit, as Parsifal mentions would have difficulty penetrating the approximate 4" of effective lower belt armor. And you could do different things with shaped charged warheads for instance for better penetration - but this comes at the cost of less true "explosive" damage as in concussive or heat other than the heat used to penetrate the armor. The missouri should be pretty safe against standard modern surface to surface weapons. Unless there were weapons designed specifically for Battleships (good armor piercing abilities along with affective charges) they should stay pretty safe. Torpedoes though are another matter, but modern ASW warfare has come a long way since WW2.

So perhaps as a rough and tumble brawler that can provide cheap shore bombardment it works, but it seems in inefficient use of resources for me, when you can have a 10,000 or so displacement large destroyer that can carry the firepower of the Ashleigh Burke class, compared to the 50,000 or so ton displacement of the Missouri. Maybe I overestimate the cost of operating the Missouri or under estimate the cost of operating a modern destroyer.


----------



## swampyankee (May 24, 2014)

Capt. Vick said:


> I remember hearing that an Exoset missle would bearly scratch the paint on one of those battlewagons.



There's no anti-battleship weapons because battleships are for all intents and purposes, useless. Weapons to defeat battleships have existed for over a century. How long do you think it would take a nation-state with an arms industry to build a weapon that could do so today?


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 24, 2014)

I think if you have the choice between retrofitting a WW2 BB versus building a new one, I'd go with a new one.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 24, 2014)

Well, the argument for, and against, a modern battleship are both certainly good ones.

Some seem to think that since it's "old school", it has no place on the modern oceans, but then again, the "old school" train of thought against a dedicated ground attack aircraft was vindicated by the successes of the A-10, too! 

When President Reagan brought the 4 battlewagons back to service in the 80's, they were outfitted with then current surface warfare weapons technology. Here in the 21st century, I am sure that a current and even a little future warfare outfitting would bring it into serious contention. It is very true that the 16" shells have no countermeasures and they are true basement diggers, typically leaving a hole 60 feet deep by 100 feet across. Heavy turrets aside, I could imagine them carrying a wider assortment of weaponry and in a larger quantity due to their displacement, in this day and age.

Perhaps I'm simply being nostalgic, perhaps it's because I had family members from the days of the "Old Navy"...and that's coloring my logic


----------



## Glider (May 24, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> It is very true that the 16" shells have no countermeasures and they are true basement diggers, typically leaving a hole 60 feet deep by 100 feet across. Heavy turrets aside, I could imagine them carrying a wider assortment of weaponry and in a larger quantity due to their displacement, in this day and age.



16in shells do have countermeasures. Since the late 1970's the RN Seawolf Missile has had the ability and has actually shot down cannon shells in flight.


----------



## kettbo (May 24, 2014)

can they take out a 9-gun salvo?
and are there more Seawolves then large fast-moving shells?
and these Seawolves.....100% accuracy?Supposing the incoming shells are supported by jamming/interference surface or from an a/c


----------



## swampyankee (May 25, 2014)

vikingBerserker said:


> I think the thing to remember is typically the BB would not operate by itself (just like CVs and cruisers but instead is part of an overall weapons system including other ships.
> 
> I think the only weapon currently out there beyond Nukes that could potentially cause serious harm to a BB is the torpedo that creates a vacuum under a ship leaving the weight support by the bow and stern and thus breaking the back. I think with the armor it has it certainly would withstand this better than any other ship, but if it could completely withstand this or not I do not know.




Actually, the battleships' heavy armor probably makes it _more_ susceptible to shock damage, as its mass will increase the forces on the supporting structure.


----------



## Glider (May 25, 2014)

kettbo said:


> can they take out a 9-gun salvo?
> and are there more Seawolves then large fast-moving shells?
> and these Seawolves.....100% accuracy?Supposing the incoming shells are supported by jamming/interference surface or from an a/c



They can calculate which shell is a danger to the ship and take that one out. The rest of your assumptions is close to fantasy you might as well comment on the defending ships ability to disrupt the fire control radar of the attacking ship. Plus if there are aircraft around its far more likely that they would be doing the attacking from a distance of many miles further than the range of the guns.

The age of the Battleship is dead plain and simple, in the same way that destroyers haven't been armed with anti shipping torpedo's for many years, the technology has moved on.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 25, 2014)

swampyankee said:


> Actually, the battleships' heavy armor probably makes it _more_ susceptible to shock damage, as its mass will increase the forces on the supporting structure.



That's the part I am not 100% sure of. You have a box with reinforced top and sides and if suddenly the entire ship was only supported by the bow and stern for a few seconds the force would try to bend the side armor which is near vertical in the middle of the ship and the top armored belt is being compressed due to the bottom of the hull being the pivot point. I would think for a few seconds the ship could probably withstand it.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 25, 2014)

Glider said:


> The age of the Battleship is dead plain and simple, in the same way that destroyers haven't been armed with anti shipping torpedo's for many years, the technology has moved on.




The Arleigh Burke destroyers still carry 2 triple tubes and a number of other nations still have destroyers equipped with them


----------



## Glider (May 25, 2014)

vikingBerserker said:


> The Arleigh Burke destroyers still carry 2 triple tubes and a number of other nations still have destroyers equipped with them



They are anti submarine torpedo's not anti shipping torpedo's smaller, lighter , agile with a shorter range and small warhead. Depending on the type an anti submarine torpedo weighs about 550lb an anti shipping torpedo as used in subs can be around 3,500lb and are very different animals


----------



## GrauGeist (May 25, 2014)

Glider said:


> The age of the Battleship is dead plain and simple, in the same way that destroyers haven't been armed with anti shipping torpedo's for many years, the technology has moved on.


And yet the age of the aircraft carrier is nearly 100 years old (HMS Argus, 1918).

Whereas the Dreadnaught type warship (HMS Dreadnaught, 1906) technology isn't much older.

I suppose there will come a day when even the Carriers will be considered antiquated and obsolete...


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 25, 2014)

Glider said:


> They are anti submarine torpedo's not anti shipping torpedo's smaller, lighter , agile with a shorter range and small warhead. Depending on the type an anti submarine torpedo weighs about 550lb an anti shipping torpedo as used in subs can be around 3,500lb and are very different animals



....and a sub is still a ship. The only difference is the sub is operating more in a 3-D environment.


----------



## Glider (May 25, 2014)

There is another difference. You only need to knock a little hole in a sub to sink it, and a socking great big one, to sink a surface warship. However if people want to believe that the 12.75in A/S torpedo is an effective killer of warships then I am happy to let them.


----------



## swampyankee (May 26, 2014)

vikingBerserker said:


> That's the part I am not 100% sure of. You have a box with reinforced top and sides and if suddenly the entire ship was only supported by the bow and stern for a few seconds the force would try to bend the side armor which is near vertical in the middle of the ship and the top armored belt is being compressed due to the bottom of the hull being the pivot point. I would think for a few seconds the ship could probably withstand it.



The way I understand it, in US battleships, the armor is hung onto the structure; the armor contributes absolutely nothing to the ship's structural integrity


----------



## swampyankee (May 26, 2014)

vikingBerserker said:


> That's the part I am not 100% sure of. You have a box with reinforced top and sides and if suddenly the entire ship was only supported by the bow and stern for a few seconds the force would try to bend the side armor which is near vertical in the middle of the ship and the top armored belt is being compressed due to the bottom of the hull being the pivot point. I would think for a few seconds the ship could probably withstand it.



The way I understand it, in US battleships, the armor is hung onto the structure; the armor contributes absolutely nothing to the ship's structural integrity against large-scale distortions, such as those from underwater shock or even from the normal stresses of being at sea.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 27, 2014)

> I suppose there will come a day when even the Carriers will be considered antiquated and obsolete...



Yeah, but I guess the value of air assets at sea is enormous. I suspect the nature or air operations themselves and technological advances might bring about the death of the giant supercarrier, and smaller, more versatile, cheaper and less vulnerable vessels will become aircraft carriers.


----------



## Garyt (May 27, 2014)

> The way I understand it, in US battleships, the armor is hung onto the structure; the armor contributes absolutely nothing to the ship's structural integrity against large-scale distortions, such as those from underwater shock or even from the normal stresses of being at sea.



That's not entirely true. The bulkheads are armored as well, and the bulkheads contribute to the structural integrity.

As far as a battleship being more vulnerable due to armor - I don't think so. This "breaking of the keel" would occasionally happen to destroyers or as big as a small light cruiser - but that's about it. Never really see it happen to a large cruiser, battleship or fleet carrier. 

One thing - Navy vessels were built to specifications exceding those of merchant ships. This meant a stronger structure better able to handle stresses. I would think a battleship would be built to stronger specifications, stronger than a destroyer for instance. I would think the repetetive use of the main armament would cause stresses lesser ship would not be able to handle. And I'm sure there could be "lemons" that did not meet up to standards, though my understanding is other than being top heavy at times (more of a problem with Japanese destroyers but all navies of WW2 had some issues with this), quality control was pretty good. 



> The Arleigh Burke destroyers still carry 2 triple tubes and a number of other nations still have destroyers equipped with them



For some reason in the modern military torpedoes seem to all be designed for anti sub use. I really don't know why, other than missiles have a better stand off range. 

What seems to be a tried and true issue with sinking naval vessels of any type - you put holes in them underwater, they sink. And this is more true with armored capital ships. Look at the Musahi and Yamato - the heaviest armored battleships of all time, and they were sunk by aerial launched torpedoes. Yeah, bombs hit too, but what sunk them was the torpedoes. And there is nothing with today's vessels that would seem to make them impervious to torpedoes.

Come to think of it, Subs often have harpoon type missiles as their surface to surface weapon. Perhaps the thought is getting in close enough to use torpedoes is too tough, torpedoes against surface ships are thought of much as the 16" gun - to hard to get into close enough range to be used effectively, and missiles can do a better job with stand off abilities.

On the other hand, the US Mk 48 ADCAP Torpedo has a warhead of effective TNT rating of 550 kilos - compared to standard anti-surface WW2 US torpedoes of 200-350kg TNT equivalent. A portion of this is due to improved efficiency of explosive, but it still has a 292kg warhead, right up there with WW2 weights, just better chemicals. It's range is shrouded a bit, but os from 10,000-32,000 meters apparently, a rather wide discrepancy, but 10-32km is a not bad stand off range. I am not sure why us Destroyers don't have torpedo tubes capable of launching these - submarines must have been determined to be a far greater threat.

One thought is the weapons available today though were born of the Cold War. The Soviets certainly had a fair amount of anti-surface torpedoes - they were just usually mounted on subs. The US surface vessels carried almost entirely anti-sub torpedoes - we were dealing with a navy that had a very strong sub force but only a token surface fleet, which probably had something to do with our armaments for our naval vessels. And a harpoon is considered very capable against anything around 5000 tons of displacement, with would be the majority of the Russian fleet. They just won't do much to a battleship.

For an effective anti-battleship weapon, you would want a torpedo, perhaps even rocket launched as the ASROC anti-sub types. The only issue I see is a good delivery vehicle. This would outweigh most current missile systems by a good margin and not be compatible with their launching systems. But this would give you a good stand off ant-battleship weapon.

As battleships are as common now as White Rhinos, I don't see anyone going through the trouble unless they became more of a threat. Perhaps the battleships current rarity is it's saving grace.

EDIT: Just to clarify, when I mention torpedoes being almost all anti-sub, I mean surface launched torpedoes or even air launched. There still seem to be significant amounts of sub torpedoes designed for anti-surface use.

Also, in regards to the torpedo tubes of the Ashleigh-Burke being used against surface targets - There was a modification of the 12.75" Mk 46 that was able to be used against surface targets. It's range is about 7.3km @ 45 knots. It's warhead is only 44.5 kilos, but with the PBXN-103 explosive that's the equivalent of an 82 kilo warhead. Not quite a WW2 torpedo, but I must add any hit of even this amount of TNT equivalent below the waterline is significant. The Yamato was hit below the waterline by a single torpedo that caused it to be laid up for a month and take on 3,000 tons of water and flood her front magazines. And the Yamato had far better anti-torpedo armor then any ship today, with the _Possible _ exception of the Missouri class. Theirs is untested and the Yamato has a bigger void and a thicker lower belt which is why I say _possibly_.

Hit even a Missouri sized battleship with a handful of the Mk46's and it would have to look at retiring from the combat area. Hit a smaller vessel like a destroyer without anti-torpedo bulges and it's in a serious situation, a few of these stand a good chance of sinking a destroyer or smaller. And I am talking about standard 2-5000 ton destroyer, not a cruiser in destroyer clothing like the Ashleigh Burke.


----------



## Garyt (May 27, 2014)

> Yeah, but I guess the value of air assets at sea is enormous. I suspect the nature or air operations themselves and technological advances might bring about the death of the giant supercarrier, and smaller, more versatile, cheaper and less vulnerable vessels will become aircraft carriers.



Perhaps drone carriers? Maybe when we get to a point where unmanned planes function as well as manned?

Certainly planes have the ability to refuel in the air right now. A carrier can allow quicker/more sorties, as well as a more hands on approach, though modern technology in communications reduces the hands-on need somewhat.


----------



## silence (May 27, 2014)

swampyankee said:


> The way I understand it, in US battleships, the armor is hung onto the structure; the armor contributes absolutely nothing to the ship's structural integrity against large-scale distortions, such as those from underwater shock or even from the normal stresses of being at sea.



BBs also utilize two different kinds of armor: face-hardened and homogeneous.

Face armor is used for vertical protection. Its outer surface is very hard, with the intent being that the AP cap of the incoming shell is shattered, drastically reducing it penetrative effectiveness. This armor is also backed by 2+ inches of wood or concrete to help absorb the shock of the impact. HE shells won't penetrate this armor, so I doubt any non-AP missile will either. Consider that a US superheavy 16" AP shell weighs in at 2700# with a striking velocity of over 1700 f/s (at 20,000 yards), I doubt any current missile would penetrate the side armor. NOW, that assumes, of course, it doesn't it above or below the side armor! 

Also note that on an Iowa-class the armor is carried internally,so the outer shell of the ship will get torn up by any explosion. The overall design of the ship accounts for this, though.

As far as a plunging (45 deg to normal) attack, any missile will have several layers of armor of varying thickness to go through. This armor is homogenous, in that its designed basically to deform under stress without tearing, sort of like pressing your finger into an inflated balloon. I don't know if an missile can plunge vertically or close to it, but it would still need to be able to penetrate roughly 7.5 inches aggregate of armor.

Now one thing to remember is that this armor does NOT protect the entire ship, but only about 60% of its length and most of the beam within that length. Anything outside can easily be torn up by HE shells etc. A great example of this is Bismarck: her upper surfaces were absolutely shredded by the RN but she was still under power - her machinery being protected by her armor - at the time she was torpedoed and scuttled.

Oh, one thing about missiles vs. shells. The Arleigh Burkes may carry 96 missiles, but an Iowa carries more shells that this per gun in addition to her own missiles. To quote Clive Cussler: a RCN destroyer encounters an unknown blip in heavy fog. After several unsuccessful attempts at hailing the blip the DD transmts, "This is the RCN Destroyer Ottawa (or whatever). Identify yourself or you will be blown out of the water." After several seconds of silence the reply is received. In a Texas drawl the RCN Captain hears, "This is the USS New Jersey. Draw when you're ready, pard'ner."

(Yes, I love BBs as much as planes!)


----------



## parsifal (May 27, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> And yet the age of the aircraft carrier is nearly 100 years old (HMS Argus, 1918).
> 
> Whereas the Dreadnaught type warship (HMS Dreadnaught, 1906) technology isn't much older.
> 
> I suppose there will come a day when even the Carriers will be considered antiquated and obsolete...




Carrier aviation is about 100 years old. Battleships are probably 350 years old in the modern age. Ships like the Victory were battleships of their day.

Dreadnoughts were a particular type of battleships. The first dreadnought was probably the Gloire, launched in the 1840s. American ironclads were also the dreadnoughts of their day.

Its more complicated than it looks, but the screw driven turretted battleship is probably 170 years old, the aircraft carrier about 100 years old.

As to when the age of the battleship ended, well, it hasnt, but as to when the Battleship ended being the primary measure of naval power, well, it depends on who is talking. Some might argue 1918, but I think it was over 1940-41, 1945 at the very latest.


----------



## Garyt (May 27, 2014)

> As to when the age of the battleship ended, well, it hasnt, but as to when the Battleship ended being the primary measure of naval power, well, it depends on who is talking. Some might argue 1918, but I think it was over 1940-41, 1945 at the very latest.



Depends upon theatre in my opinion, Parsifal. In the Pacific theatre it was outmoded from the start. In Europe it had some success. I think the idea of carrier task forces outmoded the battleship. One carrier can be dangerous to a BB, at least capable of disabling it (Bismarck), but put together a group of carriers and it's another story. Plus it helped the Japanese and American carriers to be more effective as they believed in more planes instead of deck armor. Other than the Taiho that is, though the Taiho was large enough to have a significant complement of planes.

Of course, with the Pacific Theatre not really in operation until 1942, the 1940-41 period you give makes sense.


----------



## Garyt (May 27, 2014)

> As far as a plunging (45 deg to normal) attack, any missile will have several layers of armor of varying thickness to go through. This armor is homogenous, in that its designed basically to deform under stress without tearing, sort of like pressing your finger into an inflated balloon. I don't know if an missile can plunge vertically or close to it, but it would still need to be able to penetrate roughly 7.5 inches aggregate of armor.



And unless vertical, if it comes in at say a 45 degree angle, it going to be like penetrating 10-11" if my calculations are correct. I think HEAT works a bit differently though, it's not as reliant upon the angle, but I still think that many inches of steel would be tough for a heat round.

For what it's worth, many modern warships use Kevlar in armored areas, which I think is more resistant to HEAT.

EDIT - From what I can tell, WW2 era HEAT rounds could penetrate face hardened armor equal to about their diameter. My guess this is more related to the amount of HE in the round, but more of a cube or square root calculation. BUT if indeed the penetration of diameter holds true, AND today's HE pentrates armor in a similar fashion to WW2 HEAT rounds, a Harpoon type missile should be able to penetrate 13" or so of armor, which would allow it to penetrate anywhere but perhaps the turret fronts and backs. There are a lot of "IF's' in this calculation though 

Basing it on a cube root of warhead weight (HE area of effect is calculated by this), and the 75mm German HEAT warhead (Filler) weight of .51kg, and the Harpoon missile warhead weight of 222kg, it calculates that the Harpoon could penetrate 23" of armor.

So based on this, it would seem that these warheads using HEAT could pierce armor well, though I think that focusing the explosion in a shaped charge fashion like a HEAT round reduces the damage potential of the round compared to a standard HE round. 

Oh well, hopefully someone a bit more knowledgeable than myself in modern weaponry can comment.


----------



## silence (May 27, 2014)

Penetrating several layers of armor is different than penetrating one layer. Every layer penetrated is going to instill more and more yaw in the projectile, which makes it less penetrative. It also damages the projectile, doing the same.

Properly placed spaced armor will defeat HEAT rounds. This is much easier to do on ships than on land vehicles.


----------



## Garyt (May 27, 2014)

> Penetrating several layers of armor is different than penetrating one layer. Every layer penetrated is going to instill more and more yaw in the projectile, which makes it less penetrative. It also damages the projectile, doing the same.



Per Nathan Okun, one of the leading authorities on the subject of armor penetration, multiple layers actually reduce the effectiveness of armor against AP projectiles. But yeah, against HEAT spaced armor is more effective, but I do not believe the Iowa class had spaced armor other than the deck armor.


----------



## silence (May 28, 2014)

Garyt said:


> Per Nathan Okun, one of the leading authorities on the subject of armor penetration, multiple layers actually reduce the effectiveness of armor against AP projectiles. But yeah, against HEAT spaced armor is more effective, but I do not believe the Iowa class had spaced armor other than the deck armor.



A shell penetrating an armor plate is going to have its direction of travel changed a few degrees plus have the amount it wobbles (yaws) increased, making the next strike (if any) a little more glancing than the previous strike.

Think of it like the bullet from an M-16, which is known to tumble, increasing the area of the damage but reducing its penetration.

A spaced array has to have a decent amount of separation between plates to be more effective; it can't just be several thicknesses laminated together. For a great example look at the Littorio armor scheme.

Iowa has 1.5" of STS plating outside of the armor belt - its not thick enough to decap a BB-caliber shell, but might be effective against a HEAT shell; I don't know.

I've read Okun's stuff; it doesn't take induced yaw into account. Remember that Okun is both an amateur - an amazingly gifted one, to be sure - who still to my knowledge has never published his actual work and allowed other experts to critique it. That being said its still extremely impressive. There are other people on this board and other boards who can explain this better than I can.


----------



## parsifal (May 28, 2014)

There are no missiles currently on offer that have a vertical penetration angle of attack, and no anti ship missiles that can penetrate much more than about 5 or 6 inches of armour. Thats because there is no needed for such capability in the current environment. Because there arent any does not mean its difficult to make one, or adapt existing technologies to address that threat, should the need arise. 

The technology exists and would be fairly easy to adapt were someone to produce another dreadnought style warship as the main element of their inventory. The age of battering ones way through are gone, stealth, asset dispersal and force projection are the new arbiters of naval power, and where the smart money is. 

There exists technology that i know of, bunker busting warheads, capable of penetrating up to 80 feet of reinforced concrete. Such technoloogy point to the fact that it would not be difficult to adapt existing technologies to defeat just about any armouring scheme likley to arise. 

There are reasons why armouring has not seen any extensive usage since WWII. Mostly because it is now easily made obsolete by just about using the existing technology.

Best defences are now seen as passive....low radar signatures and visibility. Behind that is passive EW defences, followed by ABM technogies like Sea Wolf, and then finally the CIWs like Vulcan. The really big threats are of course of a nuclear kind, and as the Bikini tests conculsively showed, armoured warships that are expensive and large are just targets waiting to be nuked. unlike land targets , nuclear exchanges at sea, where civvy deaths would be unlikley, a nuclear strike has to be considered as quite likley in a full conflict. 

In most situations that trained under, a warship could handle one threat. However its the multiple threats that cause the headaches, if the threats become too great and too multi layered , they tend to swamp the defences . Any hit is likely to either sink the ship, or render it unable to complete its assigned tasks. being a battleship doesnt add greatly to its survivability. above everything else however, is the issue of cost, a BB is simply not cost effective


----------



## Garyt (May 28, 2014)

> There are no missiles currently on offer that have a vertical penetration angle of attack, and no anti ship missiles that can penetrate much more than about 5 or 6 inches of armour. Thats because there is no needed for such capability in the current environment. Because there arent any does not mean its difficult to make one, or adapt existing technologies to address that threat, should the need arise.



That makes sense. I've heard the HArpoon penetrates 2-4 inches.

And looking at the Harpoon, it's warheads are definitely not heat. Which makes sense, as HEAT is designed specifically for armor penetration entirely. HEAT produces little damage other than the superheated jet spewing molten metal. It's good against personnel if in a confined tank, but little use in a typical HE role. And I guess a HEAT round is going to make a small hole, may start a fire, but that's about it. Unless you are lucky and get a hit on a BB turret and manage to start a fire in there, you won't do much damage.

So while a 220kg HEAT round could penetrate pretty thick armor, the standard large anti-ship missiles are not HEAT. Which means they probably penetrate in a similar fashion to HE shells, which based on Okun's formula's give you about a 2.7"-4" penetration, which coincidentally or not is extremely close to the penetration numbers I have read for the Harpoon missile.

I've seen a photo of a ship (modern frigate size, maybe 3000 tons) hit by a 1000 lb gp bomb, a harpoon missile, and 2 hellfire missiles. The bomb and the Harpoon did significant damage - the Hellfire just made two very small holes in the vessel.

If you want something to take out a battleship though, use something like the the Soviet P-700 Granit. 750kg warhead, mach 2.5 capable, has it's own internal countermeasures against anti-missile missiles, range of 500 km. That's 3-4 times the warhead size of a harpoon, though if using specs as a HE shell for penetration it can penetrate 7-10" of armor, still comes up a bit short.


----------



## Garyt (May 28, 2014)

> Any hit is likely to either sink the ship, or render it unable to complete its assigned tasks. being a battleship doesnt add greatly to its survivability.



I would not say one hit is going to mission kill a naval vessel. Sensors getting knocked out would be an issue, but there is some redundancy in these vessels. 

And being a battleship with today's assortment of weaponry does indeed enhance survivability.


----------



## BattleshipNightZ (Aug 10, 2016)

I would disagree entirely  The cost of a 16 inch shell is so much less than a missile. On land, we don't seem to have these debates - artillery is still a part of the battlefield. Besides, aircraft carriers just don't look as cool as battleships.


----------

