14" Naval Artillery

[argie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mirage2k:

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The BB concept as naval weapon died. The BB as ground support weapon arose

Ariel

[Major Tom]

Actually, the Iowa class Battleships were relatively poorly protected. 6" Deck armour and 12" belt armour were pretty low when compared to Japanese, British, Italian and German contemporary Battleships. The Iowa's never suffered any battle damage, but, if they are like their predacessors (with same armour strength at the same angles) then they would have suffered greatly, even from single 500 kg bomb hits. Ships like the North Carolina and South Dakota were heavily damaged by relatively small hits.

6" deck armour might seem like a lot, but, battleships with heavier armour were sunk by relatively few hits. To say that battleships are unsinkable is the same claim that Vice Admiral Tom Phillips said when he went out with the Prince of Wales (one of the best protected ships of her time) and the Repulse to get sunk by Japanese aircraft.

The Iowa class is almost 60 years old. It is about time that they are replaced.

[I/O Error]

You read my other arguments?

C'mon folks, I made a huge ranting post with a lot of good points. Can't you guys at least TRY to debate them?

P.S. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

"Commies", in the year 2001... I fear you have been watching too much of Dr Stangelove... Buck Turgidson here we come!

Regards

Jim R.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh c'mon. The Chinese and North Koreans may not be as hardcore as they WERE, but they're both still socialists old-boys clubs. (Not to mention, we REALLY don't like either of them and the feelings are mutual.)

Underestimating enemy = you get a knife in the back. You know that.

[This message has been edited by I/O Error (edited 01-01-2001).]

[Ellros]

I seem to recall a couple of the Iowa class taking kamikaze hits and as was mentioned in an earlier post, the sweepers went out to clean up. About the only damage suffered was to the open 40mm and 20mm gun positions, but nothing ever penetrated the main armor.

[I/O Error]

Exactly! Like I said, the DoD has publicly stated that most conventional weapons will not damage a BB sufficiently.

[Triggerhappy]

Well, if those battleships are unsinkable how come there are so many of them lying on the sea floor?

If they managed to knock out better armored BB's than the Iowa with weaponry of the 40's do you really think that "With just one we could stream up and down [China's] coast, and destroy EVERYTHING in range" in the year 2001? Nah.

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

Rührt euch!

CMPFCICM2 - Combat Mission Players for Campaigns in Combat Mission 2 - Join us! ;D

[This message has been edited by Triggerhappy (edited 01-01-2001).]

[gibsonm]

I'm not a squid but I thought the US was looking into "arsenal" ships (small crew, heaps a VL missile launchers, auto loaders, etc) for shore bombardment?

Would it be possible / useful to remove the aft section of a BB's superstructure and replace it with a flat deck of VLSM units?

That way you would keep most of the guns (and their radars, directors, etc) and with the weight saved there would be a major improvement in speed / endurance. Presumably the manning bill would drop as well.

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

Regards,

Mark:-{)

Getting in line for a Mercury

[Major Tom]

Uh, Kamikaze's were on the most part ineffective. Only a few planes used on Kamikaze missions could have a bomb load or reach sufficient enough speed to cause damage on even moderately armoured ships. The reason that they did so much damage is that they primarily targetted weakly armoured Essex class CV's and unarmoured Destroyers.

21" and 24" Torpedos, which are carried in just about every attack submarine are fully capable of sinking any ship afloat, even the venerable Iowa class battleships. One 24" Torpedo ripped a gaping hole in the side of the North Carolina, which had the same belt armour as the Iowa. One torpedo nearly sent this ship to the bottom. Also, the armoured protection is only stated as MAXIMUM, which covers only around 40% of the vessel. Most of the ship is relatively unarmoured.

Here's an example of the vulnerability of obsolete warships to modern weaponry. The ex-USN CL Phoenix was sold to Argentina, and quckly sunk by ONE 21" Torpedo fired by the RN Submarine Conquerer (?) during the Falkland war. It was fully escorted by the most modern vessels of the age. Sure, it armour wasn't quite as thick as the Iowa, but, it just goes to show that even armoured vessels are vulernable to modern weaponry.

It only takes a 500 kg bomb correctly placed to sink a Battleship. The technology to sink the Iowa's is well over 60 years old.

[Maximus]

This topic maybe already dead, but here's my final opinion.

Isn't the greatest ship in anyone's fleet now the Aircraft Carrier???

A Carrier full of planes has more firepower than any BB. Granted the BB was the supreme battlewagon of years gone by, but smaller faster escort type ships have come about with as much firepower as what the post-WWII era BBs had. I'll take a couple radar-controlled Phallanx mini-guns as anti-missile/aircraft defense anyday over all the small AA guns on a BB.

[Jeremy Sadler]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phoenix:

Other than shore bombardment (and a bit inland) what purpose would they serve today?

-snip-

Other than transporting hundreds of Harpoons or lobing big ass shells at shore targets, I don't see it's purpose.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To paraphrase, badly, someone somewhere: it's not the use of power, but the projection of power, that's important.

With one (let alone two!) of those babies sitting off my coast, I'd be worried!

[von Lucke]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeremy Sadler:

To paraphrase, badly, someone somewhere: it's not the use of power, but the projection of power, that's important.

With one (let alone two!) of those babies sitting off my coast, I'd be worried!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Until some fanatic in a row-boat loaded with explosives hauls up along side...

The BB is the penile implant of warships! The only reason to have one is for the bragging rights, "my ship is bigger than yours!". I thought gunboat diplomacy went out of fashion in the 1920's?

I'd recomend A Glorious Way to Die --- about the final mission of the Yamato --- if you want to see how much punishment a BB can take and still keep moving.

Unfortunately, it's not 1945 anymore, we're not in the midst of a total war, and BB's are just to expensive to maintain when other, more easily deployable weapon systems are out there that will do the same job for half the cost.

[Old Crow]

Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

"Commies", in the year 2001... I fear you have been watching too much of Dr Stangelove... Buck Turgidson here we come!

It's not always what you see, but what you don't see. I've been stationed in Japan 11 out of 19 years and there's a lot that goes on in this corner of the world that doesn't make it onto CNN or your local newspaper.

[Old Crow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus:

This topic maybe already dead, but here's my final opinion.

Isn't the greatest ship in anyone's fleet now the Aircraft Carrier???

A Carrier full of planes has more firepower than any BB. Granted the BB was the supreme battlewagon of years gone by, but smaller faster escort type ships have come about with as much firepower as what the post-WWII era BBs had. I'll take a couple radar-controlled Phallanx mini-guns as anti-missile/aircraft defense anyday over all the small AA guns on a BB. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The gist of this whole debate has gotten lost. The point is that there is a gaping hole in the U.S. Navy's ability to provide adequate surface fire support for forces making an amphibious or close ashore assault. Depending on the scale of the hostilities, you're not always going to have a carrier in support (check my earlier post regarding Somalia). I work with guys that teach NSFS (Naval Surface Fire Support) and they've been around since the last time we had BB's in the fleet so to them teaching NSFS to todays 5" plotting teams is well, almost comical.

Oh, the last time I sailed with a BB it had 4 Phalanx mounts.

[Speedy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus:

Isn't the greatest ship in anyone's fleet now the Aircraft Carrier???

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My understanding is that the greatest, most powerful vessel in anyones fleet today is also one of the cheapest, the good old submarine.

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

Work is the curse of the drinking class.

I have nothing else to say. Ya, quote that you rat bastards.

-Meeks

[I/O Error]

Like I said previously, if we are so worried about the danger of having a BB get sunk, why don't we ask the same thing about Carriers? Those things are a HUNDRED times more vulnerable, without it's escorts, than a BB.

Why don't we ask that? Because the carrier is too useful. We NEED them.

The fact is, we DO NOT have a replacement for the sheer firepower of the Battleship. Aircraft? Unlike the movies, they are NOT as accurate as most people think. When you're surrounded by AAA and SAM batteries, you are NOT flying straight and level to the target. Most bombs dropped while in "hot" areas MISS!

Also, it is relatively cheap and easy to defend against aircraft. The equipment needed to waste aircraft are a LOT cheaper than the targets they engage.

The shells of a BB, once fired, are unstoppable.

Aircraft? Fragile, relatively easy to knock out.

Cruise missiles? Slow, unmanuverable, and predictable.

16" shells? Oh, you'll see it on radar. But by God, the only thing you can DO about it is duck...

The battleship has powers we can not replace. Did ANYBODY read my earlier post on, (as an example) what we have available to take out heavily emplaced targets such as reinforced concrete bridges or hardened bunkers?

(The Iraqis had crap equipment compared to what we and the rest of the world makes in terms of buildings. We have more money to spend, so we get better stuff)

Lets revisit the idea of Battleship vulnerability.

Aircraft: Aegis cruisers (two to each Battle Group is typical) are the finest anti-air and anti-missile defenses in the world. BARE NONE. Not much will get past them. Besides, no battlegroup will get close enough to shore without 1.) neutralizing all enemy airfields and 2.) scrapping together even MORE defenses.

Missiles: Again, Aegis cruisers, PLUS the added bonus of the Phalanx Close In Weapon System (CIWS; say: See-Whiz) This includes not only traditional missiles, but ALSO the sea skimmer variety.

Torpedos (submarines): The United States Battle Group Formation has the best equipment and best training to use in the field of Anti Submarine Warfare. Not much will get in. If it is safe enough for our Carriers, (and it is) than it is REALLY safe enough for a BB.

After all, two Los Angeles 688(I) class submarines are part of the normal makeup of our surface groups.

The Battleship is not vulnerable. Not with what we can use to defend it with.

[SenorBeef]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mirage2k:

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is largely a misconception. Commonly, documentaries throw all sorts of "The aircraft carrier revolutionized naval warfare, instantly negating the effect of the battleship" comments. The battleship has largely become useless as an anti-ship naval fighting vehicle, but it has become even more potent in its role as a shore bombardment weapon. Also, an interesting statistic I read a while back.. it takes the entire air fleet from 5 full carriers to inflict the same amount of damage on shore targets that a single battleship can do in a half hour.

[saru3000]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Old Crow:

It's not always what you see, but what you don't see. I've been stationed in Japan 11 out of 19 years and there's a lot that goes on in this corner of the world that doesn't make it onto CNN or your local newspaper.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yokosuka?

[Old Crow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by saru3000:

Yokosuka?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hai

[saru3000]

I'm a navy brat.Spent the 80's on Atsugi.

[Guest Heinz 25th PzReg]

antispam-bump

[I/O Error]

I love this thread, somebody read my earlier posts and argue battleships with me!

Umm... please?

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

Honor, Duty, Courage.

Valhalla awaits you, honorable warrior...

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

"If you find yourself alone, riding through green fields with the sun on your face, do not be troubled, for you are in Elysium, and YOU ARE ALREADY DEAD!"

[Jeff Heidman]

What's to argue?

Everyone agrees that the firepower of 16" shells is awesome.

The point is that a WW2 era BB takes an exorbitant amount of resources to maintain. They have a monstrous crew, are a floating maintenance nightmare, and, when all is said and done, are probably not worth the cost involved in keeping them operational.

Sure, there is no replacement for what they can do. But that is not the issue. The issue is that the US Navy has finite resources with which to work, and spending a large chunk of them so we can swagger around talking about how big our guns are is just not worth it.

How often is it the case that there is a threat that is

A.) Big enough to warrant BB sized firepower

B.) Sitting within range of a handy shore that we control

and

C.) Isolated enough that there will not be massive collateral damage?

The BB is a great "cool" weapon. But the negatives in todays world outweigh the positives. I would much rather see the Navy spend those resources on a new attack aircraft (for example).

Jeff Heidman

[Hilltopper]

All I can say, if I'm coming in from the sea to establish a beachhead, I would want those 14/16 inchers behind me. We've lost the expertise to build BBs now days and we'll never have the serious capacity to invade well established coastal area again without them...

Ok, maybe surface combat is outdated, but you can't dispute the critical support function a BB WILL provide.

[Polar]

As it is now, the BB is obsolete... really it is.

As has been shown, the modern war is one of air superiority. Establish that, and I don't care if the target is on shore or 500 miles inland, the Carrier and it's compliment aircraft can take it out.

The #1 knock on the 16" bombardmebt is that probably 80% of the total firepower is waisted... as it will spill over onto other non-essential targets.

With air superiority (which the BB needs to opperate anyway), Carrier planes can pin point their firepower and, conversley, deliver 80% of their fire power directly to target.

It may take a little longer, but the carrier IS more efficient. Hell, it's so efficient it made a "warrior" out of Bill Clinton!!!

Joe

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

"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

[This message has been edited by Polar (edited 01-08-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Polar (edited 01-08-2001).]

[Mark IV]

There are no Iowa-class battleships "lying on the sea floor".

North Carolina was a North Carolina-class battleship. It was a lucky hit on a weak spot, btw. It still didn't sink. Iowa has better anti-torp armor than NC's. It also has 60 years of ASW development on its side.

Comparing the damage to the Cole to that which might be sustained by an armored Iowa class battleship, is like machine-gunning your family car to gauge the effects of MG fire on an Abrams tank.

Iowas exist now. The Navy is researching new long-range naval support weapons which will be, it is safe to say, expensive, less damaging than 16" rounds, and a long time in development.

One 16" ICM round disperses 656 ICM DP bomblets (as much in one shell as in two artillery batteries).

One 9 x 16" salvo = one complete volley of an entire division's support arty (109 x 155mm).

Battleships were designed to be shot at. Modern warships are not. Their mere existence in a theater forces the OPFOR to divert resources to a separate defense.

Battleships strike ground targets with more accuracy than mass aerial bombardments, without regard for weather conditions, and without risking both planes and pilots (and the subsequent hostage/rescue media circus and political "crisis").

Iowa-class battleships do carry Tomahawks (they launched over 1000 of them in the Gulf War) and remotely piloted video recon drones for spotting. Cruise missiles have great range, but nowhere near the destructive power of 16" guns.

They cost far less to operate than aircraft carriers (about 4 for 1?).

I would never advocate predicating our entire defense on a 60-year-old platform, but these monsters are a "bird in the hand" with intrinsic value. Anything that the Russian Navy, the PRC, and the US media hates that much, has got to be good.