Last of the Battleships?

[GrauGeist]

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]

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]

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

 

[Glider]

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]

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

 

[Ivan1GFP]

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]

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

 

[Capt. Vick]

True...

 

[Garyt]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Lingayan Gulf, Luzon, January 1945...

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

View attachment 263265

That's what I'm talking about!

 

[Njaco]

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!

.

 

[Garyt]

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]

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]

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.