Battleships

[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.

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]

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]

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...]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...