44 replies to this topic

[General Kirkov]

Good point.

[Lucid]

IMO, the battleships should still hold a place in the Navy's arsenal. while aircraft and cruise missiles do make the BBs obsolete for ship-to-ship, the BBs are the king of bombardment. their shells are cheaper then either aircraft or cruise missiles, while not as accurate, they cannot be shot-down like cruise missiles.

[CommanderJB]

The problem essentially evolves around economics. I am not going to argue (nor I hope is anyone else) that there is no cheaper or more effective way to carry out littoral bombardment. But it is not cost-effective to spend billions on these gigantic vessels, which require massive amounts of fuel, have huge demands on infrastructure, and like any large high-value combat ship require support screens no matter how good their own defences may or may not be, if they can fulfil just one job, and a very limited job at that. Even if they weren't such high-value assets the simple fact is that they role they fulfil doesn't warrant the amount of resources they take up. While aircraft and missiles are more expensive, they already exist and are much better from a logistical point of view in terms of homogenising service requirements, mechanical issues etc.

[Zaho]

The battleship as the ultimate bombardment naval platform is outdated because modern modern wars develop fast and the enormous vessels can't catch up with the requirements, if you change their arsenal with missiles, you can get an Aegis Cruiser of higher magnitude, however, if you want it in a ship to ship battle, this is a very hard thing to happen. The last Battleship/Battleship battle that remains in history is between Bismarck and the Hood. (when Bismarck was sunk by King George V, it was battleship vs battleship and heavy cruisers, in addition to being damaged, the Bismarck did not stand any chance against them. In modern warfare ship to ship encounters are rare and often involve the ships to fire upon themselves without any line of sight. Modern warfare sucks ass!!!

[TehKiller]

However ship to ship encounters do happen thought not in conventional warfare (example the situation at Somalia)

[Zaho]

Yeah, however, not Battleship/Battleship encounters

[JJ]

That's because of current global situations. It's not quite possible for two advanced countries to go to war against each other anymore, so wars now will mostly be superpower vs rogue nation or militants.

[TehKiller]

or you mean West Pansies vs Farmers?

seriously countries of the east are actually considering attacking someone stronger than them...look at those somalian pirates, they actually got the guts to attack naval ships

[CommanderJB]

Actually they attacked a freighter that happened to have 30 upgraded Ukrainian T-72s on it. Not a warship, a cargo ship with a captain who died of a heart attack at the news he was being pirated. Not really comparable.

[Zaho]

In the black sea operate pirates, most of which with Georgian origins that attack convoys on the eastern coast of the sea. Russian naval patrols destroy them without warning. The pirates are using small customized boats and do not stand a chance against a destroyer or a frigate in these waters, the most amazing thing is that they continue to engage in this activity. Pirates are stupid

[TehKiller]

CommanderJB, on 25 Oct 2008, 12:49, said:

Actually they attacked a freighter that happened to have 30 upgraded Ukrainian T-72s on it. Not a warship, a cargo ship with a captain who died of a heart attack at the news he was being pirated. Not really comparable.

Actually they threatened the naval ships in the area...sure they didnt engaged em but still throwing threats around does make em willing to fight someone who can blow em to bits in a matter of mins

[CommanderJB]

AFAIK all they threatened to do was scuttle the ship with its cargo if they were boarded. I could be wrong, but if they genuinely threatened the warships then... well, that doesn't exactly make them any more of a threat. Just a rather unintelligent bunch.

[number_3]

About the topic...

I guess battleships are just victims of circumstances. Since WW2 battleships carry many people and even though their weakness is the same as the carrier, The lives lost are huge (Battleships owned by US are never sunk except for the ones at pearl harbor... and it's stationary to add... Many lives loss at battleships are results of poor planning. Look at the what the british at the battle of jutland for example... )

Today, battleships can be modernize and even increase its effectiveness on the battlefield (Iowas and Wisconsin are armed with harpoons and tactical missiles and their cannons can be improved and become more powerful and accurate) and even reduce is crew members by the use of computers, but now I think Marines are foolish enough now to retire them...

Modernizing the two battleships will cost $19M (correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sure It ranges with that, and I'll search for the link asap) and with that, It will get all the benefits that I gave previously. But Instead, Marines are now planning to replace battleships with a prototype ship DDX whose role is the same as the battleship.

And in theory, DDX will be small, low profile on radar, and launch cruise missiles on target... But the offset will be lower payload, high-energy consuming, lower firepower, and since its only a destroyer, weaker armor. Also economically speaking, This thing will be more than a billion on planning only and also 2 billion to make the actual thing. And even If this thing become a success, It's firepower Isn't even comparable to battleships.

They are too dead-on with building a future army but they forgot to use common sense. They'll spend billions and billions of taxpayer's money something that is not even proven it's worth (or is not even existed yet) just to make them blown to pieces with loss of life. The battleship tactically can be compared to a role of a tank/artillery. Tanks also have weaknesses as same as the battleships (HEAT and torpedoes) but tanks still fulfill their job well and also the same as the battleship. Many people can accept the DDX but to replace battleships? It's unacceptable... If a fixed strong country became hostile enough to wage war, then I guess they'll come to their senses again...

B-52s are old, but that doesn't mean it's unreliable. Stealth Bombers came... even if it's new, it doesn't became a staple like the long-lasting B-52 does. Battleships also are the same...

Good thing congress are against retiring battleships... and put the remaining 2 symbols of naval supremacy "mothballed". Like a sleeping dragon... will be awakened again if the time and situation needs it...


-------------

BTW some disputes and info on the topic...


News by CNN

Military.com

Derkeiler

Globalpolitician

Long info report from US GOA

Edited by number_3, 26 October 2008 - 09:06.

[TehKiller]

Quote

but now I think Marines are foolish enough now to retire them...

this makes me wonder....what does the USMC have to do with the US Navies battleships?

[CommanderJB]

number_3, on 26 Oct 2008, 19:54, said:

Good thing congress are against retiring battleships... and put the remaining 2 symbols of naval supremacy "mothballed". Like a sleeping dragon... will be awakened again if the time and situation needs it...

'Fraid not this time. They've been struck from the Naval Vessels Register and officially decomissioned. They might be able to be reactivated but it would be massively expensive and time consuming now.
@U.S. Marines: The reason why the USMC are such avid battleship proponents is because their very mission revolves around assaulting shorelines, and in such a scenario there is no single thing on Earth that you want more to provide you support (or want less if you're on the beach) than a battleship dispensing several tonnes of high explosives on a rapid, regular, economical and effective basis. They've had this support for half a century now and have come to depend on it, though I think they may be overstating its necessity as I actually can't think of any heavily defended beaches to assault any more. I'm not a Marine though, so I wouldn't really know.
Frankly I doubt if the Zumwalt-class will be one third as effective as a battleship, and probably less. The question is whether the battleship remains an economical and effective platform. The answer, I would argue, is in a very limited range of situations, yes. Outside of those situations it's more of a liability than an asset. I don't think the U.S. Navy can afford them any more, and if it wants naval gunfire support, it needs to build something new that actually mounts big guns, not a Zumwalt-class. Fifty years is a long time for a ship after all.

[number_3]

Ouch...

IIRC Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, both battlecruisers sunk a aircraft carrier at WW2. And compared to british and american navies, german battlecruisers are less formidable. But the germans still with the proper planning, shows that battleships are still very effective at the hands of a clever admiral. Same as the battle of jutland. Poor command distribution and planning resulted to loss of life and resources of the More powerful British fleet. Even marines that are part of korean/vietnam wars really felt the dominance of the battleship where situations that aircraft can't help because of massive AA.

IMO battleships wouldn't be a liability these days. And with the technology these days battleships can overcome their mythical weaknesses and can be as versatile as the aircraft carrier. With harpoons that can kill subs, tomahawks for precision bombing, and the guided munitions/rail guns researchs closing to success, not adding the speed and thats on par now with the destroyer, very impressive armor, the ability to carry large amounts of cargo and being a command post/repair station for ground troops, battleships will be a formidable force to be reckon with. And really making a battleship/battlecruiser is much more cheaper than aircraft carriers.

It's just aircraft carriers are more favorable at the current US military doctrine that revolves air force and since USA is still the standing superpower (I don't think US today is still a superpower) every nation copies the trend. and also since aircraft carriers rack the deciding blow hurts battleship's reputation (I can compare it to steve nash running the court making plays, then gives the ball to an open stoudemire to make a flashy dunk. Stoudemire takes the attention and not nash even though nash made the hardest effort... and when turnovers happen nash take the blame...). Battleships will be perfectly fit for soviet battle doctrine, where ground forces, quantity and economic aspects favor the cheap, but powerful guns of the battleship. Maybe someday, if some major war happens again (I hope that doesn't happen) we'll see those warships shine again...

BTW sorry for the basketball description... I can't think of any more examples...

----------------

@JB I don't think that US navy can't afford it... they are willing to spend billions of dollars for DDX. its just battleships aren't their priority...

[CommanderJB]

Well, yes, they probably can afford it but that doesn't make it economical. Tactically battleships are very economical because shells are cheap. Strategically, however, they are an economic bane in the modern age because they can fulfil one and only one mission, littoral bombardment, unless you start completely from scratch with a brand-new design. Which brings me to my second point; battleships are not necessarily less expensive than aircraft carriers. In fact they're much more complicated objects, pretty much the most complicated moving objects ever made in fact. All an aircraft carrier has to support is a really big, flat deck, a few catapults, arrester wires and lifts. Battleships on the other hand need to be faster, more manoeuvrable and better protected while supporting multiple heavy gun turrets, individual ammunition loading and storage systems for each, secondary weaponry, fire control equipment, and in any modern design a helicopter hangar as well. I fully imagine any modern construction of comparable size would be nuclear powered, practically doubling construction costs compared to the original models right there. They're simply huge, expensive leviathans, and it will take a lot to convince anyone that that one mission of theirs still relevant, even if they used modern technologies (admittedly if they were sufficiently modern they could take on other roles as well, but they'd always be subordinate to the primary mission of naval gunfire support).

[ultimentra]

I would say that battleships are obsolete now because they are not discriminate in what they kill. If you havent noticed, bombs and artillery munitions are getting more and more accurate these days. Why? Well I would say that most countries would want to avoid collateral damage and try not to harm civilians. Why bomb an entire city with 16 inch guns when you can launch a Tomahawk missile at the one building you need bombed?

[tank50us]

because you see one building go boom, and you're not that intimidated. However, you see everything AROUND you blowing up, and you dive for cover. Battleships instill fear into those who survive their bombardments, and those who were no where near the are that was wiped out, will hear the horror stories, then they will refuse to go anywhere near the shore line for fear of what WILL happen to them. Besides, if you want precision guidance, you can always make versions of the 16" shell that are guided, they do that now with 155mm shells for the Army, it wouldn't take much to just make them bigger. Think of it this way, if you were in a room, had no weapon, with 20 other people who didn't have a weapon, and someone walked in with an M32 40mm Grenade Launcher, you'll be pretty willing to listen to what he says. The same holds true with Saturation fire, when you have something that brings that much D&D to the fight, it makes a difference in the enemies way of thinking.

[Colonel of the Cones]

Wiping out an entire city block isn't the way modern warfare works. That sort of destruction causes a fair amount of collateral damage, which beyond the obvious unnecessary harm caused, more often then not makes martyrs out of moderates.

Sorry that was a little political for this thread.

A 16 inch shell is just too large for the sort of missions that any modern Navy needs, whether guided or not. There are so few situations where saturation fire is needed - and these sorts of jobs can be covered by aircraft.

Edited by Colonel of the Cones, 13 November 2008 - 11:38.