Thorlifter
Captain
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?
Last of the Battleships?
- Thread starter Thorlifter
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
buffnut453
Captain
Yep.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
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
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
- Thread starter
- #4
Thorlifter
Captain
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Unfortunately....
buffnut453
Captain
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!
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.
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.
I remember hearing that an Exoset missle would bearly scratch the paint on one of those battlewagons.
kettbo
Senior Airman
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
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
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
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)
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?
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?
Last edited:
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
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
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
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.
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.
parsifal
Colonel
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
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
Last edited:
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
Lieutenant General
....and the rounds are a heck of a lot cheaper.
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
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/s-file/s511-34a.jpg
And this:
http://steelnavy.com/Nichimo New Jersey Battlecarrier.htm
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #18
Thorlifter
Captain
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.
parsifal
Colonel
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.
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.
