Maximus Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 Man you talk about some infantry slaughter-ers. One of those shells lands anywhere close to a horde of infantry, say Good-Bye to at least a platoon or more. I just did a Test scenario with three 14" spotters and one 240mm spotter against a Motorized Battallion and several 251/1 and Hotchkiss tanks and the AAR was something else! Something like 415 casualties (128 KIA), 115 captured, 6 guns and mortars destroyed, 24 vehicles knocked out. Score: 95 to 5 Men OK: 15 (Artillery Spotters) to 6. ------------------ "Live by the sword, live a good LONG life!"-Minsc, BGII Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 I did a test scenario once where I set up 4 German artillery spotters with heavy rockets, some 105, 75 and 81mm mortars against a company of American infantry who were conducting an attack to take the victory flags in the center of the map. All I did as the German player was to target the victory flags with artillery as soon as the Americans reached them. After 6 turns the Germans won a clear victory. With 14" naval artillery you don't have to have direct hits. Anything within 50m's will do the trick. ------------------ Blessed be the Lord my strength who teaches my hands to war and my fingers to fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Crow Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 You guys should see those things shoot in person. In '90 the ship I was on participated in the largest assembly of U.S. naval units since WWII. In company were the USS New Jersey and USS Missouri. We assembled near Guam and during the exercise an old freighter was towed out for target practice for the BB's. My ship was fortunate to have a front row seat right behind the MISSOURI and the NEW JERSEY was in front of her. They both opened up with their 16" guns at the same time. Needless to say that freighter didn't last long. Most impressive! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Old Crow: You guys should see those things shoot in person. In '90 the ship I was on participated in the largest assembly of U.S. naval units since WWII. In company were the USS New Jersey and USS Missouri. We assembled near Guam and during the exercise an old freighter was towed out for target practice for the BB's. My ship was fortunate to have a front row seat right behind the MISSOURI and the NEW JERSEY was in front of her. They both opened up with their 16" guns at the same time. Needless to say that freighter didn't last long. Most impressive! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What you saw was a piece of history in action. I doubt that there will ever be a salvo of 16" guns again. ------------------ Blessed be the Lord my strength who teaches my hands to war and my fingers to fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I/O Error Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 Big mistake retiring them, in my opinion... That kind of firepower has a nasty tendency to be needed at the EXACT moment you no longer possess it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 Other than shore bombardment (and a bit inland) what purpose would they serve today? Don't get me wrong. I've been on the Mo and think that class of ship was awesome. But really...in today's climate, a BB? Other than transporting hundreds of Harpoons or lobing big ass shells at shore targets, I don't see it's purpose. Anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I/O Error Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 Well, considering they have the power and range to hit any target over 30 miles away (actually, I think it's more, not sure anymore) and destroy it with pinpoint accuracy, I'd say they are quite useful. Among other things, their guns have more power than ANY other conventional weapons we currently have, other than Fuel-Air Explosives and that jury-rigged "bunker-buster" bomb created during the Gulf War. (currently mothballed) We have three ways of destroying heavily emplaced targets: Nuclear weapons, those mothballed bombs (which only two aircraft are even rated to carry), and the BBs guns. Tell me you honestly think it's a good idea to just chuck out a perfectly good (and irreplacable) weapons platform. The ships have the ability to carry any weapon imaginable, and the cargo ability you mentioned is invaluable. The modern BB is a super hightech weapon system, suitable for any task ranging from amphibious landing to convoy defense. And anyway, think of it as insurance: We already have them available, and we just might need that sort of thing one day. (We did the last time we went to war, right?) Shit happens to the unprepared. Sheer paranoia is a valuable skill... Edit: Oopsie. [This message has been edited by I/O Error (edited 12-30-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorBeef Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 Special ammuninition in development a while back was going to have a range of somewhere near 100 miles out of a 16" gun... I think the statistic is that 75% of the worlds population is within 100 miles of any major body of water. Actually, the cost to recommission an Iowa is roughly equivelant to buying a new destroyer - all of the major tech upgrades were done back in the 80s. They're pretty useful as fuel carriers for the rest of the fleet. You can stay out alot longer when your gas powered escorts have fuel.. battleships can carry millions of gallons of extra fuel for them. And a BB can serve as a machine shop, to fix broken things for any ship out at sea.. And even strictly as a terror weapon, they're great. In all of the vietnam war, it was never requested that any carrier left the area, but they refused to talk in the peace talks so long as the Iowa was still in their sea. The only major disadvantage is that it takes alot of crewing and associated costs, but it pays off as more than a simple shore bombardment vehicle. As it is, the best gunfire support the navy has is a single 5" gun on its cruisers... and tomahawks aren't tactical support weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manchildstein Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 i've seen a 14" grouping (4 shells) knock out upwards of 30 vehicles in a single swipe. Needless to say, my attack was over before it ever got started. Alt-A Andy (formerly "grunto") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AL the red Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 [This message has been edited by AL the red (edited 12-31-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mirage2k Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 Regarding the decommissioning of the Missouri, (this is only my opinion) I think the belief in the Navy right now is that air power can cover any hole created by the departure of the 16" guns. The Navy seems to have become a second air force in recent years, or at least that's the way it appears. Personally, I'm not sure that the decommissioning of one ship creates a whole lot of holes. -Andrew ------------------ "No, it's not that kind of relationship. We're just friends. We are together all the time, but I never touch her porcelain skin, her soft, red lips, like rose petals from the emperor's bathwater! Bathwater, I tell you, bathwateeeeeeer!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 There is a web site dedicated to petitioning congress to reactivate at least two of our battleships for their invaluable role in mobile, precise and utterly devastating firepower. Check it out. http://usnfsa.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 I think that the main problem is, after 55+ years, these ships are starting to show their age. The Essex and Midway Class carriers were extremely useful, but, the cost to keep them running wasn't worth that of what they would get out of them. This is the same for the Iowa class battleships. There still migth be a need for them, but, the cost to keep them running isn't worth the benefit of them being a part of the fleet. Plus, if sunk (and they are very vulnerable to modern weaponry) you will loose so much military power. The 'best' possible scenario is for the USN to create some sort of Monitor class, not quite as large and expensive as a battleship, but, capable of massive firepower. Possibly even the inexpensive pre-dreadnaught design could be rehashed? (you no longer need multiple guns to ensure a hit with radar tracking) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Crow Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom: The Essex and Midway Class carriers were extremely useful, but, the cost to keep them running wasn't worth that of what they would get out of them. This is the same for the Iowa class battleships. There still migth be a need for them, but, the cost to keep them running isn't worth the benefit of them being a part of the fleet. Plus, if sunk (and they are very vulnerable to modern weaponry) you will loose so much military power.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The discussion of the BB's survivability would always come up in CIC whenever we had one steaming in the vicinity. When pondering the outcome of a cruise missile attack the common remark would be, "They'd just go out and hold sweepers." ASCM's aren't designed to penetrate that much armor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted December 31, 2000 Share Posted December 31, 2000 If they have weaponry capable of smashing through armoured air bunkers, I am pretty sure they can get through the Iowa's armoured deck and belt. Keeping these large and expensive ships in service when cheaper ones could fulfil their roles is not a wize move for any navy in peacetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathman Posted December 31, 2000 Share Posted December 31, 2000 The manpower required to keep BB's in service is another factor which the navy looked at when deciding to mothball them, especially in a climate where the recruiting goals are tough to meet. Now if we would re-instate the draft.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted December 31, 2000 Share Posted December 31, 2000 All you need is a good old fashioned war! Keeping these ships alive will also mean that you will have to manufacture replacement parts, ammunition, and other equipment not used in any other type of vessel in the Navy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted December 31, 2000 Share Posted December 31, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nathman: Now if we would re-instate the draft....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ...college enrollment rates, emigration (legal or otherwise), civil disobedience, not-so-civil disobedience, and a whole host of other goodies would skyrocket. ------------------ Soy super bien soy super super bien soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Crow Posted January 1, 2001 Share Posted January 1, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom: If they have weaponry capable of smashing through armoured air bunkers, I am pretty sure they can get through the Iowa's armoured deck and belt. Keeping these large and expensive ships in service when cheaper ones could fulfil their roles is not a wize move for any navy in peacetime.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That would be short-range visual or laser guided weaponry; unless you're talking about something comparable to the Tomahawk. Incidentally, the U.S. Navy has abandoned the Tomahawk in the TASM role partially due to the shift from open-ocean to littoral warfare. The likelihood of hitting background shipping poses too great a risk when using a long range ASCM in the littoral arena. The Harpoon load-out has been decreased for the same reason. The Russians have an ALCM with that capability but no longer have the multitudes of delivery platforms to make it a substantial threat to a CV/BB battle group. BB's always had a couple units AW capable in company and in time of war would be in proximity of a CV that would provide greater depth in air-defense. Somebody coming out to target a BB with a weapon capable of bunker busting would be a desperate act indeed. Besides, ships move, bunkers don’t. Utilizing a land attack weapon in an anti-shipping role opens up a host of other variables to contend with. As far as cost involved, the BB's were re-activated at around $450 mil each. They could be re-activated today for around $110 mil each. Arleighs cost $1 bil. a pop and Tico’s a little more. The up-grade included the cost of digitizing the 16” and 5” fire-control systems and adding other up-to-date sensors/systems that are commonplace on U.S. ships; except for the Aegis system (which, despite popular belief, is not an end-all air defense system). Also, BB’s run on steam plants, most of the U.S. Navy’s amphib's are steam driven. Up until 20-25 years ago most ships were steam so there’s plenty of mothballed Babcock and Wilcox spare parts. All the press hoopla about the expense of manning and maintaining BB’s is suspect. The accident on the Iowa didn’t help much either. 1,500 BB sailors didn’t get paid anymore than any other sailor. Parts, they’re stockpiled. 16” barrels, there’s plenty of those too not to mention the ammo to go with them. BB’s cost $68 mil annually to operate and maintain; a Tico’ costs $53 mil. For the price of one F/A-18 you can operate a BB for a year and deliver much greater lethality, not to mention a BB’s inherent survivability. So actually losing an Arleigh or Tico’ would be significantly more costly dollar wise than losing a BB. I've got a piece of the deck from the first ship I was on, FFG-37, and it's about as thick as this pencil on my desk. Decks on the larger classes aren’t much thicker. The 6” of grade “A” steel armor used on the decks of BB’s ( it’s 12” at the waterline) provides quite a bit more protection. You hit any ship today with an ASCM carrying 1000lbs of HE and you’re going to put it out of action. The two Exocets fired at the STARK carried less than 500 lbs of HE; one detonated inside, the other whistled right through it! As someone mentioned earlier, the world’s population is mostly in the vicinity of the coastline. BB’s don’t have to worry about penetrating layers of air defense to get ordnance on target. You can shoot down a Tomahawk, shooting down a 16” round or 9 of them at a whack every 30 seconds would be beyond the capabilities of most if not all air defense systems. The destructive power of a 16” round is a heck of a lot cheaper than a Tomahawk. Today, having 4 of them might not be necessary but I think keeping one active would provide the Navy with an option that they are scurrying to provide by something as cost effective as a BB’s firepower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lacky Posted January 1, 2001 Share Posted January 1, 2001 Using a 60 year old BB isn't wise. It'd make more sense for the US navy to design a triple turret, single 16"+ rifled-barrel/turret monitor, which would maneuver faster and operate more efficiently. Such a ship (monitor, battlecruiser) could be outfitted with a proper VL system instead of the ad hoc Missouri retrofit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CATguy Posted January 1, 2001 Share Posted January 1, 2001 The BB as a weapons system is completely obsolete. They are extremely expenisive to operate and they are huge targets of opportunity. There are better ways to deliver the firepower needed. This weapons system saw its heydays in the 40's and will never see it again. I wont even go into the morale issues the navy had with the BB's in the 80's and early 90's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I/O Error Posted January 1, 2001 Share Posted January 1, 2001 <rant> BB guns = Pinpoint accuracy at a higher ROF and relatively cheap compared to: 1.) Aircraft. Expensive to build, fuel, arm, train pilots, repair, etc. Not to mention, VERY dangerous job. SAMs are still hell on pilots. 2.) Cruise missiles. The guns on a BB are more powerful, more accurate, cheaper, and move more quickly. It was mentioned that BB are great targets of opportunity. So were (and are) the Kirov class of ships the Russians made. And we FEARED those things. Also, studies have stated that most conventional weapons simply will not do the damage needed to knock out and/or sick an Iowa class Battleship. Missiles? That's why God made Aegis cruisers. Torpedos? Oh c'mon. If the ASW boys and submarines screw up THAT badly, it DESERVES to be hit! Nuclear weapons? Just as reasonable to ask the same question of a carrier. Those things have NO defense, and cost a pretty penny too. More expensive than a BB to build/maintain. And yet we ALL know that we can not be a superpower without them. Battleships? They're freaking invincible superweapons, for Christ's sake! Best things ever made for amphib. landings, great weapon of PSYCHOLOGICAL warfare, and recent advances in gunnery make it possible to upgrade the barrels/ammunition used on BB to allow ranges of up to 100 miles. (ummm... Actually, I think it said more, but since I am unsure, best to err on the side of caution) Tell me you don't like the idea of a weapon that CAN NOT be knocked out of the air after being shot and that can reach (according to the press releases) 75% of the world's land areas. Also, consider this: We have/had three ways to knock out heavily emplaced targets. (Permanent reinforced bridges, underground bunks, underground supply depots, etc) 1.) Nukes. Yeah, really bloody likely, I know; but that IS one of the our possible tools. 2.) Remember that jury-rigged bomb (used old artillery barrels, clever job) we manufactured to hit Saddam's bunker? (I do, I was living in Saudi Arabia at the time) Those are NOT in production currently and less than half a dozen of them exist. Not to mention, only TWO aircraft in our inventory can even carry ONE of the damn things. And bunkers like that tend to have a HELLACIOUS amount of AAA and SAM coverage. 3.) BB guns. Wrath-of-God powerful, pinpoint accurate, IMPOSSIBLE to intercept, etc. Cheap too. Don't say I forgot cruise missiles, you would be wrong. They DO NOT CARRY SUFFICIENT PAYLOAD. (Or possess even a tenth of the needed penetration power) If nothing else, the BB is a powerful reminder to the world that we OWN the fucking oceans. Presence of force is the best way to remind people of that. Everytime China stages "missile drills" off Taiwan, (ROC) we send in 7th Fleet or another group if closer. And you know what? The commies play REAL nice when we do. They FEAR the US navy. A BB? With just one we could stream up and down their coast, and destroy EVERYTHING in range. They know that. Deterence. In my opinion, the Battleship is simply too powerful and useful a tool to simply throw away. The Carrier and the Battleship BOTH have absolutely essential roles to play in America's role as the Guardian of the Free Oceans. </rant> Rebuttals? [This message has been edited by I/O Error (edited 01-01-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Crow Posted January 1, 2001 Share Posted January 1, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by I/O Error: <rant> Battleships? They're freaking invincible superweapons, for Christ's sake! Best things ever made for amphib. landings, great weapon of PSYCHOLOGICAL warfare, and recent advances in gunnery make it possible to upgrade the barrels/ammunition used on BB to allow ranges of up to 100 miles. </rant> [This message has been edited by I/O Error (edited 01-01-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was off the coast of Somalia in ’95 when we pulled the last of the civilians and Marines out of Mogadishu. By the time the Marines closed down their perimeter and prepared to egress it was low tide and 2-3 hundred yards between the waterline and the sand dunes. I watched from my ship as those Somali’s came up over the sand dunes and fired down onto the Marines. The next day I heard more than one Marine cursing the ineffectiveness of the 5” pop guns on the DD’s and CG’s in company. The intimidating sight of the BB alone might have saved a few lives that day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted January 1, 2001 Share Posted January 1, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by I/O Error: <rant> If nothing else, the BB is a powerful reminder to the world that we OWN the fucking oceans. Presence of force is the best way to remind people of that. Everytime China stages "missile drills" off Taiwan, (ROC) we send in 7th Fleet or another group if closer. And you know what? The commies play REAL nice when we do. They FEAR the US navy. A BB? With just one we could stream up and down their coast, and destroy EVERYTHING in range. They know that. Deterence. In my opinion, the Battleship is simply too powerful and useful a tool to simply throw away. The Carrier and the Battleship BOTH have absolutely essential roles to play in America's role as the Guardian of the Free Oceans. </rant> Rebuttals? [This message has been edited by I/O Error (edited 01-01-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> "Commies", in the year 2001... I fear you have been watching too much of Dr Stangelove... Buck Turgidson here we come! Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mirage2k Posted January 1, 2001 Share Posted January 1, 2001 Forgive my ignorance, but I had thought that the battleship concept had pretty much died out after World War II, due to advances in aircraft and torpedo technology. -Andrew ------------------ "No, it's not that kind of relationship. We're just friends. We are together all the time, but I never touch her porcelain skin, her soft, red lips, like rose petals from the emperor's bathwater! Bathwater, I tell you, bathwateeeeeeer!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts