# Battleships



## the great white north

Why is it that battleships are no longer apart of anyones fleets? They can still serve a purpose in a navy as seen in the gulf war. As I understand it its because of the new technology introduced that there guns arent very useful, but if there just modernized I think they can still be important. So should we bring them back or are they really done?


----------



## hugh19

They where done after the battle of Midway in 1942.


----------



## aesop081

sledge said:
			
		

> They where done after the battle of Midway in 1942.



They were done long before that.


----------



## aesop081

the great white north said:
			
		

> Why is it that battleships are no longer apart of anyones fleets?



They are hugely expensive to operate and provide very little that a modern fleet doesnt already have with smaller warships.


----------



## hugh19

Ok after I wrote that I remembered Taranto.


----------



## hugh19

As far as NGS goes which was what they stayed around for mostly. A monitor would be better.


----------



## aesop081

sledge said:
			
		

> Ok after I wrote that I remembered Taranto.



IMHO, they were done on July 20th, 1921 at 1240 pm.


----------



## aesop081

sledge said:
			
		

> As far as NGS goes which was what they stayed around for mostly.



IMHO, the USN kept them around only as a cold war counter to the Russian Kirovs.


----------



## hugh19

BUt a test against a anchored ship that is not firing back is not a real test. IMHO anyway. But I am with you in your assesment.

A counter to the Kirovs yes but  Uncle sams misguided children liked the guns for NGS.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

Google earth to....

 39"56'21.91"N by 75"07'59 W for nice shot of the USS New Jersey.

 30"40'54.58N by 88"00'51.57 W for the USS Alabama.

 41"42'24.51 N by 71"90'46.76 W for the USS Massachusetts.(edit to add)

 34"14'11.46 N by 77"57'15.82 W for the USS North Carolina(edit to add)

 29"45'22.72 N by 95"05'23.18 W for the USS Texas(edit to add)

 21"21'43.20 N by 157'57'12.65 W For the USS Missouri south west is the sunken remains of the USS Arizona and the Memorial site to pearl harbour.


 They may not be used but they are not forgotten.

Cheers.


----------



## the great white north

Whats the reason you feel that they have been done for so long, when one was used in the gulf war?


----------



## hugh19

They where replaced by aircraft carriers. So they where used for launching tomahawks in GW1. A Tike or AB can carry more as can a Ohio SSGN. They are too big use a huge crew and not effective anymore. Hence why no one uses them. The Brits got rid of their last one in 1960. Have you been to a library to read about the subject at all? Just curious, Their are many books around that will explain it all.


----------



## aesop081

the great white north said:
			
		

> Whats the reason you feel that they have been done for so long, when one was used in the gulf war?



They are huge expense in both money and manpower. maintaining that size of a platform for NGS is a waste of scarce resources. They are incredibly vulnerable so you have to task many other warships to escort it, consuming more resources.


----------



## the great white north

I see, so the aircraft carrier has replaced them. Makes sense.


----------



## aesop081

the great white north said:
			
		

> I see, so the aircraft carrier has replaced them. Makes sense.



Its not that the aircraft carrier "replaced" the battleship but that the aircraft carrier eclipsed the battleship as far as a tool of power projection.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Also IMHO a carrier is more versitle that a "battle wagon" it provides airpower (both fixed and rotary), marines, fair sized medical facilites, and like CDN AVIATOR said its a projection of power.

Battle wagons had really only one purpose to lauch 16 inch shells at land or sea targets.

My 2 cents, your mileage will vary.


----------



## aesop081

If you think of how much battlespace a carrier group can domintae as oposed to a group centered around a battle ship, IMHO, the demise of the BB is obvious.

Putting a BB off the coast of a beligerent nation has, again IMHO, less political value than that of a CBG.

The battleship's glory days faded with the end of "gun-based" ship to ship combat.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

From
A SHORT HISTORY OF WAR
The Evolution of Warfare and Weapons

Richard A. Gabriel and Karen S. Metz

Strategic Studies Institute
U.S. Army War College




> The war at sea saw the demise of the battleship as it became increasingly vulnerable to air and undersea attack. The aircraft carrier became the major naval weapon. Carriers like the Essex and Midway class carried over 100 strike aircraft, were 820 feet long with beams of 147 feet, and could move at 32 knots. Carrier-based aircraft were remarkable machines. These aircraft carried 2,000 pounds of bombs, flew at 350 miles per hour, attacked with rockets, torpedoes, and machine guns, and ranged over 300 miles. Although submarines operated with new electrical motors to make them increasingly difficult to detect, antisubmarine technology improved markedly. Radar and radio sets allowed antisubmarine aircraft to detect submarines at night. New depth charges provided surface vessels with new means of submarine destruction. By 1944, the submarine was no longer a significant threat to surface combatants


----------



## Lumber

Sitting a CVN off the coast and sending in sorties of fighter/bombers to hit targets risks the lives of those pilots.

Sitting a BB off the coast and sending in volleys of 16" shells risks no one's lives.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## aesop081

Lumber said:
			
		

> Sitting a CVN off the coast and sending in sorties of fighter/bombers to hit targets risks the lives of those pilots.
> 
> Sitting a BB off the coast and sending in volleys of 16" shells risks no one's lives.
> 
> Just my 2 cents.



 :

Those shells can only go so far. Its what i was getting at with my "size of the battlespace" comment. A BB with 16 inch gus can dominate the coastline. A CVN can dominate an entire region.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Lumber said:
			
		

> Sitting a CVN off the coast and sending in sorties of fighter/bombers to hit targets risks the lives of those pilots.
> 
> Sitting a BB off the coast and sending in volleys of 16" shells risks no one's lives.
> 
> Just my 2 cents.



But can a battleship recall those shells if something at the traget changed?

At least with aircraft you have the ability to cancel or change the mission once the go is given.

My 2 cents, your mileage will vary.


----------



## hugh19

Aircraft do a much better job.   Why is everyone wrapped up in 16"? The guns ranged from 11 to 18.1 inches.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

sledge said:
			
		

> Aircraft do a much better job.   Why is everyone wrapped up in 16"? The guns ranged from 11 to 18.1 inches.



Maybe because we seem to have focused on the Iowa Class.

Iowa class
Country:  United States 
Displacement: 45,000 tons 
Armament:* 9 × 16 in (406 mm) guns*, 20 × 5 in (127 mm) guns, 80 x 40 mm AA guns, 49 x 20 mm AA guns (1983 modification added 32 x Tomahawk and 16 x Harpoon missiles and 4 x Phalanx CIWS) 
Armor: 12.1 inch (307 mm) belt; 19.7 inch (500 mm) turret; 7.5 inch (191 mm) deck 
Speed: 33 knots (61 km/h) 
Ships in class: 4 completed plus 2 planned: USS Iowa, USS New Jersey, USS Missouri, USS Wisconsin, USS Illinois(not completed), and USS Kentucky(not completed) 
Commissioned: 22 February 1943 
Fate: Iowa & Wisconsin maintained in US mothball fleet, Missouri & New Jersey transferred for use as museums, Illinois & Kentucky cancelled before completion. Bow of USS Kentucky used to repair USS Wisconsin.


----------



## hugh19

My opinion is if you want guns for NGS build a monitor, but other than that aircraft do a much better job than a BB for ASW/ASuW AAW and power projection.


----------



## whitehorse

How about a CBG with cruise missiles and Armed UAV's? No threat to pilots then. 'Recall' of weapon once launched is still an issue with cruise missiles but ultimately the BB is a concept of the past - too many people required to man them.


----------



## hugh19

SO you are want a UAV to provide CAP?  I don't see that happening for a long time yet.


----------



## whitehorse

No, but to do a strike mission where a pilot's life is more at risk. They are already doing this. 

The point is that while a 16" shell doesn't have a pilot, nor does a Tomahawk or a Predator.

The navies who actually have these weapons systems have weighed the advantadges of manned strike missions versus 16" shells versus Tomahawk/predator havemade their calculations and the consensus is:

BB gone - history
Manned strike missions - only where targeting actually requires direct human oversight
unmanned strike misions - more prevalent and on the ascendancy


----------



## Infanteer

I remember reading somewhere that we really haven't considered that missile technology may have displaced the aircraft carrier just as carrier-based aviation displaced the battleship.  Anyone ever play that old naval game "Harpoon".  I remember sinking the Foch on the first day of the war by filling the sky up with a couple hundred anti-surface missiles.

Carriers can project alot of power, but how is a military to react when one goes down with 5000+ aboard due to a swarm of cheap (relatively speaking) missiles that simply overwhelm all defences.  The submarine may yet prove to be the king of the seas.


----------



## aesop081

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The submarine may yet prove to be the king of the seas.



The nuclear age made that possible. Until then "submersible" was a more accurate term. That being said, very few countries are capable of this threat. The carrier and its battle group ( which often includes its own submarines) still rules the seas. It is a powerful symbol of resolve and strenght and punches well above its weight in time of crisis. The battleship cannot impose itself with the same effect on a nation and neither can an SSN/SSGN.


----------



## xena

WRT missile domination:  wasn't that the same kind of thing where a few decades ago people were thinking that fighter aircraft (particularly interceptors) were going to be obsolete?  That didn't happen for multiple reasons.  Would any of those same reasons apply to keeping Carriers afloat in a missile rich environment?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

What else would you use to place off the coast of a country you want to wake up? Or underscore a point?

Nothing says hello better then a super carrier with 90+ aircraft and its escorts and auxillaries.


----------



## genesis98

All things aside, NGS I think became obsolete when the Airborne gunship was concieved. The ability to hover over a target and directly observe TICS and support them is a great benefit.


----------



## hugh19

So why have the Germans fitted out ships capable of housing a Panzer2000 (?) 155mm turret?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

genesis98 said:
			
		

> All things aside, NGS I think became obsolete when the Airborne gunship was concieved. The ability to hover over a target and directly observe TICS and support them is a great benefit.



So let me ask you this....is air cover available 24 hours a day? An aircraft is not much good staying over a target once it expends its ordenance now is it?


----------



## genesis98

sledge said:
			
		

> So why have the Germans fitted out ships capable of housing a Panzer2000 (?) 155mm turret?



A swiss army knife is still a swiss army knife no matter how you look at it.

Having a dedicated tool designed to do a specific job usually leads to a better endstate.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

sledge said:
			
		

> So why have the Germans fitted out ships capable of housing a Panzer2000 (?) 155mm turret?



A buddy of mine that was on the Hamburg at the time told me thay had a lot of problems with corrosion so it looks like the program was dropped. So he has heard anyways....lower decker like us sledge. 



			
				genesis98 said:
			
		

> A swiss army knife is still a swiss army knife no matter how you look at it.
> 
> Having a dedicated tool designed to do a specific job usually leads to a better endstate.



that does not really back up your claim thats NGS is obsolete now does it?


----------



## genesis98

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> So let me ask you this....is air cover available 24 hours a day? An aircraft is not much good staying over a target once it expends its ordenance now is it?



Is a ship much good offshore once its ordenance is expended? (it's the same argument)

In todays battlespace air support usually is a 24 hour thing when there are TIC. 

If a naval gun is positioned offshore of a hostile country and the range of it's NGS are 65km then there is no possible way it can get closer to engage a target if the TIC are out of range.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> Is a ship much good offshore once its ordenance is expended? (it's the same argument)


How many sorties does a gunship have to meet to match the amount of explosive power a ship brings into the fray?



> In todays battlespace air support usually is a 24 hour thing when there are TIC.


Thats not always a guarantee.



> If a naval gun is positioned offshore of a hostile country and the range of it's NGS are 65km then there is no possible way it can get closer to engage a target if the TIC are out of range.


true but by that the time of the boys thats wear green have hopefully siezed some airbases as they have moved in land so they could have some land based air craft moving along with them as they advanced.


----------



## hugh19

Gee I guess have a AOR to restock ammo would never do. Can you reammo a helo in midflight?? ;D


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Rearming aircraft in midflight would be a nice capability for sure.... but its one that does not exist as far as I know.


----------



## hugh19

I know we can refuel them though,  hmm imagine trying to hang fresh bombs on a CF-18  while doing mach 1?   be a bad day to be air force hehehehehe


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Still waiting for you to tell us what your swiss army knife comment has to do with NGS...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

sledge said:
			
		

> I know we can refuel them though,  hmm imagine trying to hang fresh bombs on a CF-18  while doing mach 1?   be a bad day to be air force hehehehehe



nah we will make it easy for Genesis, we will give him loading Mk46s on CP140s.... 

and he is gone....


----------



## hugh19

Maybe the swiss have a pocket flying howitzer..... ;D


----------



## hugh19

yeah but theCP140 has a bombbay so that would just make it too easy.


----------



## genesis98

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Still waiting for you to tell us what your swiss army knife comment has to do with NGS...



I was refering to sledges comment about the germans putting a panzer 2000 turret on a ship. The mating of two proven platforms does not always equal a good result.


----------



## geo

Warships in the old days were used by countries to project power overseas.
While only dealing with surface warships only able to effectively use guns, the Battleships were king... 
However, with the advent of missiles and modern technology, the Battleship isn't all that effective at projecting a nation's power... 
Frigates, Destroyers & Cruisers have the potential to deliver the destructive power as a WW2 Battleship - at a fraction of the cost ( crew, Oil, supplies).
The aircraft carrier with it's air wing projects power
The Nuclear balistic submarine with is's missiles projects power.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

genesis98 said:
			
		

> I was refering to sledges comment about the germans putting a panzer 2000 turret on a ship. The mating of two proven platforms does not always equal a good result.



You still have not backed up your claim that NGS is obsolete...if you can't back it up withdraw your comment. The only thing you proved was your were speaking outside your lane.


----------



## aesop081

geo said:
			
		

> Warships in the old days were used by countries to project power overseas.



This is still true today .


----------



## Paul W...

They should be brought back to support Marine operations.

I don't think Navy or Marine aircraft could provide as much firepower as a group of Battleships could provide and be as fast.


----------



## geo

a barrage of cruise missiles, fired from smallish warships & / or submarines would probably deliver just as effective a "show" as the old BBs


----------



## Paul W...

Lots of firepower,but not as fast for CAS.


----------



## aesop081

Paul W... said:
			
		

> They should be brought back to support Marine operations.
> 
> I don't think Navy or Marine aircraft could provide as much firepower as a group of Battleships could provide and be as fast.



Ok....a BB has a crew of almost 2000 on board. They cost millions of dollars to operate ( let alone build, maintain, upgrade, refit....whatever). All that expense to simply provide NGS that is limited in range for operations that can only be done near a coastline. A battleship would be of no use to the Marines in Afghanistan and would be of no use to US forces in most of Iraq. The only weapon that the battleship brings to the fight in both these cases is cruise missiles and there are plenty of other USN ships capable of firing those as well as USAF aircraft.


----------



## Paul W...

Yes it's expensive to operate a fleet of them and they're not likey to be pulled of retirement or will new ones be bought,so I'm not holding my breathe.
But for a beach landing they'd more than likely pay for themselves by saving many ground troops and aircrews lives as they would deliver massive and nearly on time fire support and most importantly win the battle.

If I was in charge I'd spend that extra money.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Paul W... said:
			
		

> Lots of firepower,but not as fast for CAS.



What are you arguing for..close air support or battleships?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Paul W... said:
			
		

> Yes it's expensive to operate a fleet of them and they're not likey to be pulled of retirement or will new ones be bought,so I'm not holding my breathe.


Your right..their time is definitely now past.



> But for a beach landing they'd more than likely pay for themselves by saving many ground troops and aircrews lives as they would deliver massive and nearly on time fire support and most importantly win the battle.



Massive firepower does not always win battles. A team effort between aircraft with PGMs and accurate naval launched weapons does the same as 12 to 16 inch guns.




> If I was in charge I'd spend that extra money.


Well where would Canada get those 2000 sailors to man one battleship let alone the fleet you advocate? Going to an NGS role only for the Navy is just plain shortsighted....


----------



## aesop081

Paul W... said:
			
		

> If I was in charge I'd spend that extra money.



We're not talking about "extra money" here......we're talking about billions of dollars and manpower needs that the US military is incapable of filling. All that to provide a limited capability that other assets already deliver in one way or another.


----------



## Paul W...

The US plans are now for using only aircraft and cruise missiles in beach landing operations,but I'm sure the Marines would probably like to have six to eight Battleships to support an operation as they would be quicker to respond to the need for fire support until they can land the artillery.

I'm not thinking in terms of what I'd do if I was in charge of Canada as we have no Marines,I'm thinking about what I'd do if I was in charge in the US.


----------



## Paul W...

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> We're not talking about "extra money" here......we're talking about billions of dollars and manpower needs that the US military is incapable of filling. All that to provide a limited capability that other assets already deliver in one way or another.


 No not in the near future,I'm just thinking about saving Marines and aircrews lives,I hope the day comes when they'll get that extra support again.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Paul W... said:
			
		

> The US plans are now for using only aircraft and cruise missiles in beach landing operations,but I'm sure the Marines would probably like to have six to eight Battleships to support an operation as they would be quicker to respond to the need for fire support until they can land the artillery.
> 
> I'm not thinking in terms of what I'd do if I was in charge of Canada as we have no Marines,I'm thinking about what I'd do if I was in charge in the US.



Really? Where is the proof of that?


----------



## Paul W...

Whuups, I meant to say is that aircraft and cruise missiles are the only ones that'll be supporting the ground troops on beach landings.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Really? What about the 5 inch guns found on most USN surface combatants?

Still waiting on your proof.....


----------



## hugh19

Apparently they don't exist.


----------



## Paul W...

Okay I forgot that there are 127mm guns on a lot of US ships,I guess you win this round.


----------



## Rodahn

Paul W... said:
			
		

> Whuups, I meant to say is that aircraft and cruise missiles are the only ones that'll be supporting the ground troops on beach landings.



While our frigate's 57mm is not a large calibre weapon, the rate of fire would have a tendency of ruining somebody's day, should they be an opposing force during an amphibious landing.......


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

There is no "guess" as you had no idea what you were talking about. You're the second that was found to be way outside your arcs. :



> While our frigate's 57mm is not a large calibre weapon, the rate of fire would have a tendency of ruining somebody's day, should they be an opposing force during an amphibious landing.......


Agreed....any amount of stuff that goes boom, can have detrimental effect on the enemy


----------



## aesop081

Paul W... said:
			
		

> six to eight Battleships



 :rofl:


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

I hate to be "that guy", but I think Paul W has the right of it. Maybe it's just a coincidence.

The USN has come out with a doctrine that NGFS isn't supposed to be done any closer than 25 nm from the shore. That's why they brought out the new 5"/62 and 155mm AGS, with 40+ nm ranges firing advanced shells. Those weapons haven't exactly worked out as designed, so what the USN is going to use is way up in the air.

If you google for "hanlon letter" you can see what the USMC has asked for.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Perhaps the USN retired their 4 IOWA class early, but lets face reality. They were maintenance  and manpower pigs that had finding spare parts for were getting to be a nightmare. You would be better off with new builds and not battleships. It was mentioned before of a monitor class. Less man power instensive, cheaper in the long run to operate.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> You would be better off with new builds and not battleships. It was mentioned before of a monitor class. Less man power instensive, cheaper in the long run to operate.



I agree. If you really needed 16" NGFS, that would be the way to go.


----------



## aesop081

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> I hate to be "that guy", but I think Paul W has the right of it. Maybe it's just a coincidence.



I'm not arguing against the requirement for NGFS......i'm saying that building behemouth BBs is not the way to provide it.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

NGFS is needed...bringing back an obsolete warship type is not the answer. Maybe we should bring back a 1st rate to save on fuel...


----------



## Stoker

Since the retirement of the Battleships the US still do not have the long gun range capability and fires support the Battleship brought to the table. The advance gun system (AGS) although promising in early trials was never fitted aboard a warship. Yes the battleship was hard to maintain and had high manning problems, however the psychological impact of the battleship on hostile forces the ship brought to the table was significant. It was said when the IOWA was sent down the Straits of Hormuz during the Iran-Iraq War, all of southern Iran would go quiet. I guess the cabability of sending a shell the size of a VW bus with pinpoint accuracy was unnerving to some. The cost of reactivating 2 battleships would be less than the cost of building a DD(X). The battleships could be fitted out with advance munitions to extend their range to 100KM. Also in a missile environment it could be argued that a Battleship has a greater chance of survivability than other thinner skinned ships. I really think the Battleships could prove useful in future littoral operations.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Whats the difference between trying to develop advanced munitions for the battleships or working on the new gun system for present day surface combatants? you still have to develop them...

I don't think we need to build a DDX...a simple no frills monitor used for NGS would save the USN money.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=search2

Lots of good discussion on NGS located in the above link as well.


----------



## Stoker

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Whats the difference between trying to develop advanced munitions for the battleships or working on the new gun system for present day surface combatants? you still have to develop them...
> 
> I don't think we need to build a DDX...a simple no frills monitor used for NGS would save the USN money.



I believe the technology for the shells is already developed.


----------



## Paul W...

Stoker said:
			
		

> Since the retirement of the Battleships the US still do not have the long gun range capability and fires support the Battleship brought to the table. The advance gun system (AGS) although promising in early trials was never fitted aboard a warship. Yes the battleship was hard to maintain and had high manning problems, however the psychological impact of the battleship on hostile forces the ship brought to the table was significant. It was said when the IOWA was sent down the Straits of Hormuz during the Iran-Iraq War, all of southern Iran would go quiet. I guess the cabability of sending a shell the size of a VW bus with pinpoint accuracy was unnerving to some. The cost of reactivating 2 battleships would be less than the cost of building a DD(X). The battleships could be fitted out with advance munitions to extend their range to 100KM. Also in a missile environment it could be argued that a Battleship has a greater chance of survivability than other thinner skinned ships. I really think the Battleships could prove useful in future littoral operations.


The future attack doctrine of the Navy and Marines is to launch a landing farther from the shore than they are capable of doing now so a number of Battleships would do a much better job than a guided round from a 127mm that only has a range of only 40km.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Stoker said:
			
		

> I believe the technology for the shells is already developed.


I remember they were going to work on it but I figured the program stopped with funding going elsewhere.



			
				Paul W... said:
			
		

> The future attack doctrine of the Navy and Marines is to launch a landing farther from the shore than they are capable of doing now so a number of Battleships would do a much better job than a guided round from a 127mm that only has a range of only 40km.


Is there will in the USN to do so? Nope...as it would rob a lot of resources from other new ships, maintenance budgets etc. Not gonna happen...and when your troops are 40 miles inland chances are you have seized an air field.


----------



## Rodahn

Paul W... said:
			
		

> The future attack doctrine of the Navy and Marines is to launch a landing farther from the shore than they are capable of doing now so a number of Battleships would do a much better job than a guided round from a 127mm that only has a range of only 40km.



Paul;

Could you please fill in your profile so that the members have an idea of your background, and expertise? It would provide a greater deal of credability on your statements.

On another note, as I stated earlier, even the 57mm will screw up someones day in an amphibious assault. The current rate of fire for the 57mm provides the equivalent of a 493 (approx) inch shell every minute... And you are not going to get that kind of fire power from a battleship... Sometimes less is more....


----------



## Neill McKay

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Ok....a BB has a crew of almost 2000 on board. They cost millions of dollars to operate ( let alone build, maintain, upgrade, refit....whatever).



To expand a bit on this, I recall reading that part of what finally got the USN out of the battleship business was the fact that they could build three new, modern, destroyers for the cost of taking one battleship out of mothballs.


----------



## Paul W...

There's nothing to fill in,I didn't serve in the forces,the closest I got to the service was two years as an Air Cadet attending two summer camps.

I read alot of military books and magazines and I don't mean Scott Taylors editorials.That's all the education I have about military issues.



			
				Rodahn said:
			
		

> On another note, as I stated earlier, even the 57mm will screw up someones day in an amphibious assault. The current rate of fire for the 57mm provides the equivalent of a 493 (approx) inch shell every minute... And you are not going to get that kind of fire power from a battleship... Sometimes less is more....



A 1900lb round will destroy anything that gets in it's way compared to numerous 57mm rounds,but I don't totally know I'm not an expert.
The future Navy/Marine doctrine is to keep the big ships as far from the coast as possible and only a Battleship can fire rounds from that distance,the last I read a few years back was that a MLRS ship concept was being considered by the Navy to give fire support to the Marines,but I haven't heard anything about that since.

I'm rooting for the Battleship idea.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Actually it was called the Arsenal ship and the program got canned.


----------



## Rodahn

Paul W... said:
			
		

> There's nothing to fill in,I didn't serve in the forces,the closest I got to the service was two years as an Air Cadet attending two summer camps.
> 
> I read alot of military books and magazines and I don't mean Scott Taylors editorials.That's all the education I have about military issues.
> 
> A 1900lb round will destroy anything that gets in it's way compared to numerous 57mm rounds,but I don't totally know I'm not an expert.
> The future Navy/Marine doctrine is to keep the big ships as far from the coast as possible and only a Battleship can fire rounds from that distance,the last I read a few years back was that a MLRS ship concept was being considered by the Navy to give fire support to the Marines,but I haven't heard anything about that since.
> 
> I'm rooting for the Battleship idea.



Having worked with explosives, I know what certain amounts of the item will do, however destruction is not always required, nor desired on all occasions. The idea behind the greater fire power of the 57mm is to cause the enemy to not be able to react to friendly forces objectives; IE they can't shoot at us because they are too busy keeping their respective heads down and preserving their own lives.

As I said sometimes less is more... A single 2000lb bomb or shell may destroy the objective that the friendly forces are trying to attain, to enable us to push further ahead....

BTW; I've been on the Normandy beaches of DDay, and seen the holes that the battleship shells have left, and they really didn't help the amphibious force that much, nor did they destroy that many of the defensive bunkers on the "Atlantic Wall"


----------



## Stoker

N. McKay said:
			
		

> To expand a bit on this, I recall reading that part of what finally got the USN out of the battleship business was the fact that they could build three new, modern, destroyers for the cost of taking one battleship out of mothballs.




Actually the cost of activating FOUR battleships during the Gulf War was 1.5 Billion. The price of 1 new DDX was between 2 to 3 billion. When the battleships were reactivated during the Gulf War, the crews were cut down to about 1200 pers. The proposed modernization of the battleships in 2005 had the crews cut down to 600 to 700. The problem is that once the battleships are gone they cannot be rebuilt, it would be too expensive.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

just some data of two 5 inch guns in service with the USN as well as the 16 inch guns. After reading those articles I am convinced we are better off with what we have now.

5 inch 54
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-54_mk45.htm

5 inch 62
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-62_mk45.htm

16 inch
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm


----------



## Paul W...

Rodahn said:
			
		

> BTW; I've been on the Normandy beaches of DDay, and seen the holes that the battleship shells have left, and they really didn't help the amphibious force that much, nor did they destroy that many of the defensive bunkers on the "Atlantic Wall"



Good point,it's like using shaped charges instead of getting nothing using a lot of explosives like the Germans used against(I think)French bunker complexes.


----------



## Rodahn

Paul W... said:
			
		

> Good point,it's like using shaped charges instead of getting nothing using a lot of explosives like the Germans used against(I think)French bunker complexes.



Actually the Germans bypassed the French bunker complexes..... through the Ardenne forrest... Much to the chargrin of the French...


----------



## R933ex

Paul W... said:
			
		

> Good point,it's like using shaped charges instead of getting nothing using a lot of explosives like the Germans used against(I think)French bunker complexes.



I think you are thinking about the German air assault on Fort Eben-Emael in Holland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Eben-Emael


----------



## Stoker

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> just some data of two 5 inch guns in service with the USN as well as the 16 inch guns. After reading those articles I am convinced we are better off with what we have now.
> 
> 5 inch 54
> http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-54_mk45.htm
> 
> 5 inch 62
> http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-62_mk45.htm
> 
> 16 inch
> http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm



Interesting read, I noticed a nuclear shell was developed for the IOWA class. One of those would ruin your day >


----------



## Paul W...

That's the one.


----------



## Paul W...

Fort Eben Emael was in Belgium.


----------



## R933ex

Yep. Its been to long of a day time to go nighty night!


----------



## Stoker

Rodahn said:
			
		

> Having worked with explosives, I know what certain amounts of the item will do, however destruction is not always required, nor desired on all occasions. The idea behind the greater fire power of the 57mm is to cause the enemy to not be able to react to friendly forces objectives; IE they can't shoot at us because they are too busy keeping their respective heads down and preserving their own lives.
> 
> As I said sometimes less is more... A single 2000lb bomb or shell may destroy the objective that the friendly forces are trying to attain, to enable us to push further ahead....
> 
> BTW; I've been on the Normandy beaches of DDay, and seen the holes that the battleship shells have left, and they really didn't help the amphibious force that much, nor did they destroy that many of the defensive bunkers on the "Atlantic Wall"



All I am saying is as well of the destructive power of a 2000lb shell, is also the physiological effect of one of these shells coming in on the enemy, not to mention the IOWA class battleships also had 12 5 inch guns as well. I will guarantee that the enemy will keep their heads down after a couple of salvo's of her 16 inch guns and the enemy hears the sound of a freight train coming their way. Its not always about the rate of fire.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Some interesting size comparisons between the Arleigh Burke class DDG and the Iowa class BB. As much as I detest Wikipedia they had an interesting article that states the USMC and the USN were both happy to sign off in getting rid of the BB. So something is not jiving here regarding some facts that were stated....

Iowa 888 ft oa long
     108 ft beam
     38 ft draught
     52,271 tonnes full load
     1,800 pers)1980s)

Arleigh Burke(FlightIIa)
             513 feet length
             59 feet beam
             31 feet 
             9,217 tons full load 
             380 pers

Dimensions are from FAS.org

Wiki article on Iowa class battleships:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_class_battleship


> --On 17 March 2006 the Secretary of the Navy exercised his authority to strike Iowa and Wisconsin from the Naval Vessel Register, which cleared the way for both ships to be donated for use as museums. The United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps had both certified that battleships would not be needed in any future war, and have thus turned their attention to development and construction of the next generation Zumwalt-class guided missile destroyers.--


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

The billion dollar question boils down to this...what is more useful and benefical to the USN. 1 ship that possibly a maintenance liability as it ages or 1-3 ships that can cover more ground. partake in a variety of more missions not to mention cover and control more waterspace....


----------



## Edward Campbell

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Some interesting size comparisons between the Arleigh Burke class DDG and the Iowa class BB. As much as I detest Wikipedia they had an interesting article that states the USMC and the USN were both happy to sign off in getting rid of the BB. So something is not jiving here regarding some facts that were stated....
> 
> Iowa 888 ft oa long
> 108 ft beam
> 38 ft draught
> 52,271 tonnes full load
> 1,800 pers)1980s)
> 
> Arleigh Burke(FlightIIa)
> 513 feet length
> 59 feet beam
> 31 feet
> 9,217 tons full load
> 380 pers
> 
> Dimensions are from FAS.org
> 
> Wiki article on Iowa class battleships:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_class_battleship




Interesting.

For a while, back in the early '80s, the CPF Project was, only half jokingly, called the Canadian Light Cruiser Project as the ship (design) grew and grew.

HMCS Ontario, our last cruiser, which was paid off just before I enlisted, had these attributes:

555 ft length
63 feet beam
17 ft draught
11,130 tons (full load) displacement
867 crew

The CPFs are:

440 feet length
54 feet beam
16 feet draught
4,770 tons (full load) displacement
225 crew

The 1940s era frigates - that were still in service in the '60s, long after I enlisted, indeed after I was commissioned, were:

301 feet length
37 feet beam
13 feet draught
2,216 tons (full load) displacement
141 crew

Ships have grown, no matter what what we call them. 

Primary sources: http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/ww2/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_class_frigate


----------



## GAP

Having served on the frigate CCGS St. Catherines when it was a weathership, it sure seemed awful small out there in that great big ocean.... ;D


----------



## Old Sweat

The battleship was conceived and designed to be a ship of the line, like HMS Victory. Most first rate navies maintained these ships, although the Washington Naval Treaty eventualy limited their size and numbers. Even so, they persisted into the early years of the Second World War as the predominant expression of sea power. That was hardly surprising as the admirals and politicians of the era had all been born in the 19th century, and had spent their formative years before the first flight and the development of air power.

These ships persisted during the later years of the Second World War because they were available, and produced a big bang on the ground, or on the atoll, if you wish. When resurrected for Vietnam, I suspect it was to fill a gap in fire support inland that could be controlled by the navy and marines in the absence of anything else to fill the bill. (The USAF, wedded as it was to the concept of air power as a separate and equal entity, would and could not surrender the control of its B52's to them or anyone else, even for short periods.)

The Second World War is more than sixty years in the past, or roughly the same distance in time as the Northwest Rebellion is from it. Vietnam ended thirty-five odd years ago, roughly the gap in time between the end of the Boer War and the invasion of Poland. Technology has relegated the battleship to the history books, along with horsed cavalry and gatling guns. There are all sorts of modern weapons that will do the job faster, better and at less cost. 

And that is my admittedly biased take on the issue.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

The USN's current doctrine is to provide NGFS from over the horizon, ie 25 nm and up. The battleships couldn't do that, which is why they were removed from the list and transferred to museum organisations.

AGS is still alive and kicking, but from what I've heard there are serious technical issues. There will also only be 3 DD-1000 built to carry them, and the AGS is a bit large to go on a Burke.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Interesting.
> 
> For a while, back in the early '80s, the CPF Project was, only half jokingly, called the Canadian Light Cruiser Project as the ship (design) grew and grew.
> 
> HMCS Ontario, our last cruiser, which was paid off just before I enlisted, had these attributes:
> 
> 555 ft length
> 63 feet beam
> 17 ft draught
> 11,130 tons (full load) displacement
> 867 crew
> 
> The CPFs are:
> 
> 440 feet length
> 54 feet beam
> 16 feet draught
> 4,770 tons (full load) displacement
> 225 crew
> 
> The 1940s era frigates - that were still in service in the '60s, long after I enlisted, indeed after I was commissioned, were:
> 
> 301 feet length
> 37 feet beam
> 13 feet draught
> 2,216 tons (full load) displacement
> 141 crew
> 
> Ships have grown, no matter what what we call them.
> 
> Primary sources: http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/ww2/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_class_frigate



Agreed that ships have grown...Arleigh Burkes are comparative in size to WW1 era battleships. I believe its the Texas class they use...


----------



## ltmaverick25

I finally got some time to dedicate to reading this thread..

As I first started reading through the posts I was very much in the camp that beleives the BBs are obsolete, of no use, and not cost effective ect...

However, I think, that may have been a bit premature.  I think alot of us are looking at likely scenarios today, and within that context, I would agree, there is no role for a BB.

However, should we ever find ourselves in a situation where a Normandy style amphibious invasion is necessary, it is my beleif that the BBs will win the day.  Keep in mind that should this happen, western or American forces will be up against an equal foe, someone that can actually fight back on a conventional platform.

Some of you have mentioned that the smaller guns on the destroyers or frigates could provide decent fire support.  In theory this is true, but in practice I think this line of thinking is flawed.

a) The range is limited compared to the guns of a BB, thus the ships would have to get far too close to the shore..  This would not be idea as our ships would now be in range of land based enemy weapons systems like big gun emplacements.  To the best of my knowledge all of our ships defence systems are based around intercepting missles.  Can we defend against shells?

b) Frigates, destroyers or cruisers have other roles that they need to perform.  Who is going to perform them while they are busy trying to fill a conventional BB role?

c) Psychological effect:  Having artillery fire rain down constantly has a devastating effect on the enemy.

d) Suppression fire:  It is my belief that a BB can provide better suppression fire, and thus better fire and movement capability for the marines who are just hitting the beaches then cruise missiles or any other type of missile for that matter.  Missiles still have a role to play, and an important one at that.  But it seems to me they are better suited for destroying very specific installations.  Its all about economy of scale.  If you try to use a tomahawk missile the same way you would BB gun fire, I think you would find that it is no longer more efficient then the BBs are.

As for what happens when the marines move further in shore.  Well obviously the BBs role would end there, no question about that.  My argument however is that supporting troops that far inland would not be the role of the BB.  The idea here is, if the troops can move that far in, they are also able to bring their own artillery with them for fire support.  But insofar as the initial beach landing, and ONLY the initial beach landing, I believe the BB remains the best platform for fire support.

I certainly agree that it is not efficient or feasible to man and operate BBs on a regular basis, but should the time ever come when we face an opponent that can fight back and we end up in a full blown conventional war requiring contested amphibious assaults, we will all be very happy that the USN kept a few IOWAS handy.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I disagree and here is why:
1) Battleships while powerful in their day are antiques by todays standards. The current generation of USN personnel would have to go through an expensive training regime to be able to use the Iowa class.
2) Maintenance issues we have issues with 35+ year old destroyers and tankers what kind of issues will you have with ships that are in their 60s. New built BBs would rival aircraft carriers in cost.
3) Manpower- even with automation your crew would still end up numbering 900+. Thats almost 2 crews for 2 Arleigh Burkes or other ships.
4) Spare parts, ammo. where would you get them.
5) Escorts- you would have to detail critically needed escorts away from CSGs and ESGs to escort and defend the BB from threats she could not defend herself from.
6) Vulnerable- you know everybody and their dog would make it their priority target. I would even go as far as to say a nuclear armed foe would use or consider using a nuke to take out the BB.
7) Resource hog- when not in use, the BB would end up in the slips being repaired or upgraded. Thats a lot of money for 1 or 2 ships. 
8) PGMs carried on rotary wing and fixed wing aircraft IMO can deliver more accurate fire where you need it more. Having to decimate a grid square is not always feasible or desireable for commanders out there.
Thats just off the top of my head, if I come up with more I will add.

And maverick asking if our defences can engage shells is OPSEC.


----------



## ltmaverick25

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> And maverick asking if our defences can engage shells is OPSEC.



My bad, that didnt occur to me.

As for all the other points you made.  No disagreements there.  As I said, its pretty tough to imagine using them from a feasibility standpoint now, because, well they just arent feasible  ;D

By the same token, using tomohawks or the like to provide the same kind of fire support does not seem feasible either.  Perhaps, its just a matter of the US simply not having been able to answer the question of how to support a modern day beach landing without using a BB.  Based on some of the things some of you have been posting it seems that they have tried with little success (I am just going based on what I read here in this thread).in

As for requiring too many ships in support of a BB to keep it safe.  That is true, but I dont think it is any different then what we saw in WW2.  There were approx 6600 allied ships that took part in the Normandy invasion (According to Marc Milner).  

Based on that, the argument that I am trying to put together is, if we should ever find ourselves having to mount a Normandy type invasion against a well defended foe, questions of cost may not hold the same weight as they do now.  Weather the things will still sail by then is a whole other matter I suppose.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> By the same token, using tomohawks or the like to provide the same kind of fire support does not seem feasible either.  Perhaps, its just a matter of the US simply not having been able to answer the question of how to support a modern day beach landing without using a BB.  Based on some of the things some of you have been posting it seems that they have tried with little success (I am just going based on what I read here in this thread).


Tomahawk has greater range and is more accurate then a 16" shell and can be launched from a multitude of platforms.



> As for requiring too many ships in support of a BB to keep it safe.  That is true, but I dont think it is any different then what we saw in WW2.  There were approx 6600 allied ships that took part in the Normandy invasion (According to Marc Milner).


Considering ships were less complicated back then and there is not much of a shipbuilding industry left, I think the days of mass fleets of 6600+ ships are gone.



> Weather the things will still sail by then is a whole other matter I suppose


Operationally I think you might want to know this before making your attack. 

I can't see battleships coming back. It would be like saying lets bring back a 3rd rate so we can save on fuel costs. The era of the battleship is past and its been supplanted and IMO surpassed by todays technology. *If* a ship was to be designed around the big gun, I would say it would be in a monitor type vessel.


----------



## ltmaverick25

I think the Tomahawk missile is an excellent weapons system with many benefits, I just dont think it was designed to replace shore bombardment.  I also dont think things have changed in land based warfare so much that a BBs fire support would not be welcome.  All of the points that you raise are certainly valid, and there is no getting around them, that is likely why some of the ships have been mothballed instead of completely done away with.  My impression is the USN wants to have that option available to them should the need ever arise again.

As far as massive fleets go, you are probably right about that.  What would also be interesting is to take a Normandy invasion and provide Germany with the naval means of interdicting by sea, operation overlord.  That would also change the dynamic quite a bit.

I think at sea, a guided missle would certainly be far more superior then 16 inch ballistic shells.  What would worry me in a purely conventional setting though is the ability to shoot down these missiles.  I am not an expert by any means yet, but it seems to me that most navies, ours included have the capability of intercepting missiles fired at their ships.  So how many missiles would one have to fire in order to get one missile through?  (Im not asking for an OPSEC violation, rather just food for thought).  

If it does take an obscene amount of missiles to make it through defensive screens, do we have enough missiles on board for such a task?  Can we reasonably expect to re- supply our missiles from an AOR during the heat of battle?  

I think that is one area where conventional guns may have an advantage.


----------



## Lumber

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> If it does take an obscene amount of missiles to make it through defensive screens, do we have enough missiles on board for such a task?  Can we reasonably expect to respply our missles from an AOR during the heat of battle?



Our ships can't reload their missiles at sea. Sorry.


----------



## ltmaverick25

Lumber said:
			
		

> Our ships can't reload their missiles at sea. Sorry.



That just further reinforces where I was going.  So, given that we cant re-supply missiles while underway, do we have enough missiles on board to make it through a ships defensive systems?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> That just further reinforces where I was going.  So, given that we cant re-supply missiles while underway, do we have enough missiles on board to make it through a ships defensive systems?



Weren't we talking about NGFS and not ASuW?


----------



## Neill McKay

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> I think the Tomahawk missile is an excellent weapons system with many benefits, I just dont think it was designed to replace shore bombardment.



Is there not a version for exactly that purpose?


----------



## ltmaverick25

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Weren't we talking about NGFS and not ASuW?



Yep, but I started thinking about ASuW too.  Not directly related to battleships but still something worth considering, unless I am missing something else, which at this point is entirely possible  ;D


----------



## ltmaverick25

N. McKay said:
			
		

> Is there not a version for exactly that purpose?



I dont know, I am trying to look it up on my janes account but not having any luck yet.


----------



## Journeyman

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> I think the Tomahawk missile is an excellent weapons system with many benefits,
> I just dont think it was designed to replace shore bombardment.


To merely inform the discussion

A 16-inch shell costs around $500

A Conventional Cruise Missile costs $1,160,000*

(Figures from online sources; your milage may vary)


------------
* Based on AGM-86B ALCM ('air-launched' figures were easier to find); ballpark figures for the Navy aren't too different since the cruise missile manufacturer is the same. You will likely be able to get a simplified version for approximately $800,000


----------



## 1feral1

I am Army, and I have no RAN experience shy of hitching a ride on the HMAS Manoora, but here is some pics of the USN's Mighty Mo taken in Aug 08. Impressive beast to say the least.

Enjoy/drool/ or do what you must to appreciate this floating piece of military history.

Regards,

OWDU


----------



## 1feral1

Here is some Cruise Missle carriers she had in her latter years of service.....

Harry and his Missus at the Mess then and now....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

CountDC when a mod removes your post that is not an invitation to ut it back. Next time you get a verbal.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Snakedoc

Some great pictures OD, they do look quite impressive!


----------

