Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
xXx_Emeraldking208_xXx

Battleships could stand a chance

16 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
307 posts
7,302 battles

Everyone

BATTLESHIPS STAND A CHANCE TODAY

First we need to think of what they are up against. Terrorist groups don't have modern ships. Hell, they don't even have any naval power. Also, I don't think warships today fight other warships often. Also, I don't think any nations will attack America anytime soon.

Next, small missiles can have little effect against battleships.

Missiles on AEGIS class destroyers have little effect on Iowa class battleships. These missiles are made for modern, thin-armored vessels. On battleships, we are talking about a foot of pure steel in some places. The harpoon missile has a 221kg warhead, the tomahawk 450kg. Both not specifically designed for armor piercing. However, bunker-buster missiles could work just fine and deliver a cruel blow. Next, if a missile is incredibly accurate, two hits in the same place can deliver a bad blow as well. There is a problem with deploying bunker-buster missiles, though. They are too dang expensive to make. Also, you want to conserve firepower, so launching a salvo of 20 missiles at a single target is unrealistic and extremely costly.

Next we need to talk about the intimidation factor (<-- pay attention to this, I know some people will skim right over it). Statistic aside, if you see something as large and as heavily gunned and armored as a battleship roll up next to your tin can armored destroyer, most people would nope in the other direction. Most don't have the gut to attack this thing do to it's sheer size, armor, and firepower.

So everyone says that battleships are obsolete. That may very well be true, however, that can only apply to making battleships. Reactivating some though, that is a different story.

 

XX_Emeraldking_XX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,339
Members
4,202 posts
8,877 battles

As much as I would love to see them come back again (USN Veteran) I am afraid it will never be. They cost to much to operate and are way out of date, and new versions of an BB type of ship does not fit the current Navy.

Edited by Chaos_EN2
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
221 posts
5,473 battles

The Iowa's unfortunately will not be coming back. However, there is a serious lack of fire support ships in the modern navy. Unfortunately, the navy staff doesn't get it.

Edited by Magyar5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,339
Members
4,202 posts
8,877 battles
3 minutes ago, Magyar5 said:

The Iowa's unfortunately will not be coming back. However, there is a serious lack of fire support ships in the modern navy. Unfortunately, the navy staff doesn't get it.

Yeah I know only the Marines, and the Gator Navy understands that, but I do not see them even bring them back for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,254
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
13,285 posts
18,465 battles

There are a number of problems with your post.

1). Weapons costs are measured by what they do against their sticker price, and while "Bunker Busters" are expensive, they aren't nearly as expensive as replacing a Battleship. And to take this argument to it's logical conclusion, nuclear tipped cruise missiles which can negate an entire fleet are much less expensive than an entire fleet.

2). Intimidation factors aren't all that impressive to someone who has never seen a Battleship in his life, because he lives in the middle of a desert, and the only book he has ever seen is the Koran.

3). Weapons developments are going in different directions; like underwater stealth ships which fire missiles; orbital gravity weapons which use radar and lasers for targeting; and drone systems which work like bees and overwhelm defense systems by sheer numbers while not endangering human beings.

The day of the Battleship ended on a Sunday morning, December 7, 1941.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
294
[WAG]
Members
859 posts
12,476 battles

That ship has literally sailed. There is no need for a new battleship, and the newest ones, Iowa Class, are over 70 years old and been converted to museum ships. Sure they were state of the art when they were built, but seventy years have wrecked havoc on them. I have been to visit the USS North Carolina, one of the latest ships your plan would consider. Rust is so bad you could punch your fist through the armor in places, and there is an $8 million dollar project in the works right now to keep the ship from literally falling apart while moored in a river, and you propose sailing it on the open seas? Not going to happen.

Further, what sort of intimidation could a BB with a gun range of around 26 miles do that a CVN with a strike range of 500 miles not do? Yes, they could be a cruise missile platform, but isn't an SSBN a better platform? There are four U.S. Navy Ohio-class SSBNs converted in the mid-2000s to be able to salvo launch up to 144 Tomahawk cruise missiles from their modified vertical launch SLBM tubes. These are self sufficient platforms that could pop up anywhere in the world to deliver their payload. A WWII BB would need an entire group of ships to provide AA, ASW, and replenishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,339
Members
4,202 posts
8,877 battles
1 minute ago, Umikami said:

There are a number of problems with your post.

1). Weapons costs are measured by what they do against their sticker price, and while "Bunker Busters" are expensive, they aren't nearly as expensive as replacing a Battleship. And to take this argument to it's logical conclusion, nuclear tipped cruise missiles which can negate an entire fleet are much less expensive than an entire fleet.

2). Intimidation factors aren't all that impressive to someone who has never seen a Battleship in his life, because he lives in the middle of a desert, and the only book he has ever seen is the Koran.

3). Weapons developments are going in different directions; like underwater stealth ships which fire missiles; orbital gravity weapons which use radar and lasers for targeting; and drone systems which work like bees and overwhelm defense systems by sheer numbers while not endangering human beings.

The day of the Battleship ended on a Sunday morning, December 7, 1941.

Yup, I hate to agree. I remember when Ronnie brought them back, I tried multiple times to get transferred. I could see a new type of ship - Shore Support with some type gun system to support Landing of troops, but BBs nope not going to happen.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,339
Members
4,202 posts
8,877 battles
4 minutes ago, Chaos_EN2 said:

Shore Support with some type gun system to support Landing of troops, but BBs nope not going to happen.  

P.S. naval gunfire support - I do not think the Zumwalt-class destroyer (the Ugly Ship beaten with a ugly stick) will be good for this. I think the Navy and the Marines need to design something that can do the job right. Not just a stop gap like Zumwalts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,832
[GWG]
Members
6,722 posts
12,788 battles

In 1941........   HMS Queen Elizabeth........  Italian Divers.......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Alexandria_(1941)

Tirpitz

Takao/Myoko

Nowadays, they can use submersible drones, wire guide them to target,

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
221 posts
5,473 battles

I'm not saying that the battleship will or will not be coming back, but we do need a true support ship, preferably with guns 8 inch or larger or the coming railgun. Sure they don't have to be armored, but it is preferable with anti ship missiles being a threat the closer to shore you get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,152
[SYN]
Members
5,811 posts
13,212 battles

Lots of nostalgia and romanticism with battleships.  Rose-tinted goggles, etc...

Reactivating one of the old BBs back into commision today would be monumentally stupid on so many levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,832
[GWG]
Members
6,722 posts
12,788 battles

Gentlemen...

We are talking about Asymmetric Warfare.

We are talking about the USS Cole.

I'm talking about where a dozen men are equipped to take out a harbored battleship/heavy cruiser.   This has happened a few times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,339
Members
4,202 posts
8,877 battles
5 minutes ago, Magyar5 said:

I'm not saying that the battleship will or will not be coming back, but we do need a true support ship, preferably with guns 8 inch or larger or the coming railgun. Sure they don't have to be armored, but it is preferable with anti ship missiles being a threat the closer to shore you get.

I agree with that, I am not to up on the Railgun. As far as armored, I think it would need some type but not at BB levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
93
[RNJR]
Members
282 posts
4,921 battles

there is nothing an unguided battleship salvo can do that guided precision air launched munitions couldnt do safer, mote accurate, relaliable and most importantly RANGE. how many miles can a shell travel in atmosphere versus a fighter jet or a dozen jets?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,282
[RKLES]
Members
12,238 posts
13,882 battles
17 minutes ago, Swift_Scythe said:

there is nothing an unguided battleship salvo can do that guided precision air launched munitions couldnt do safer, mote accurate, relaliable and most importantly RANGE. how many miles can a shell travel in atmosphere versus a fighter jet or a dozen jets?   

Actually there is the theoretical problem of guided ordnance having jamming. But that would take some major enemy Tech to do. But the BBs would be immune to such jamming considering some from WWII were able to ride out Nuckear blasts.

But  yeah our current guided munitions do a great job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,866
[SOUP]
Modder, Supertester
8,724 posts

They're a huge slow target, with weapon systems today being able to sink a ship with a single shot (see also: HMS Sheffield) it's better to have a small, fast and mobile ship that can avoid being hit than to risk losing so many lives.


[EDIT]: To the guy who downvoted me; I'm sorry that logic clashes with your views of the world, but if battleships had been the way of the future, they would not have had their last huzzah during World War 2 where they were easy prey for air attack (See also: Musashi, Prince of Wales, Repulse, Yamato, etc). During WW2 they spent more time being fire support craft shelling beachheads and coastlines than they did in toe-to-toe brawls with other warships.
And with modern weapon systems, your big armour boat is just going to be perforated by smaller, faster and far cheaper missile systems. India and Russia are jointly developing a Mach-7 anti-ship missile, and that information is already half a decade old. If Battleships are the end-all-be-all of future naval technology, why does every navy in the world use only destroyers and missile cruisers now?
Don't live in the past if you want to think for the future.

  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×