Last of the Battleships?

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

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.

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

vikingBerserker said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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...

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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!)

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...

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.