I wonder, if the 21st Century, would it be a myth that a battleship would be effective? Do not get me wrong, I love the old battle wagons, and would lover to see one still in service. I am in and from, Truman Country (Kansas City, MO), so the USS Missouri is one battleship that is close to my heart. I also had a great-uncle serve (and was killed) on the Battleship USS Indiana (BB-58). I have a host of books, and a few models of these majestic warships. But, in 21st Century Navel Warfare, how much use is a battleship? Granted, they could be used for shore battery, but will there really be any more large amphibious landing invasions in the future? As we grow more and more reliant on advanced technology, how much use is a sixty year plus warship, that requires a large crew to operate? Even though three of the four are now museums (and the Iowa someday), from what I understand all four can be brought back if needed. I find it unlikely that we ever will hear their primary battery ever roar again, but would they even be effective in today's world?

Go back and look at all the battleships that were sunk in WWII. Almost all were sunk by air attack ( I know-the Bismarck was just disabled by air attack). With today's sea skimming, radar guided missiles they would present the ideal target. They could be easily overwhelmed by a coordinated attack. They are just too big, slow, expensive, and labor intensive to be of any use.

I fear you are right that we will never hear the big guns fired again, but they would be useful if the need ever arose for an amphibious assault ever arose again.

You just never know where the Marines may be called to go and "hit the beach".

quote:

Go back and look at all the battleships that were sunk in WWII. Almost all were sunk by air attack ( I know-the Bismarck was just disabled by air attack). With today's sea skimming, radar guided missiles they would present the ideal target. They could be easily overwhelmed by a coordinated attack.

True that. But for the amphib scenario, you would/should have air superiority/supremacy or you wouldn't be making a landing anyway.

But you're right, they are big targets when there is a threat of air attack.

While I will admit that they are truly beautiful ships the age of battleships is past. WWII taught us that there is no match for aircraft carriers and their ability to project power.

Due to that and the decline of naval power by other countries you will not see any pitched naval battles in the future. The time of naval ships lining up and pounding each other with 16 inch guns has passed.

Just my opinion.

mc

Actually, just to play Devil's Advocate, the overwhelming majority of battleships sunk by carrier aircraft in WWII were either a.) built to the tonnage/armament confines of the Washington Treaty and/or b.) Not in a battle-ready status.

In fact, there was only ONE battleship sunk by carrier aircraft that didn't fall into one or both of the above criteria, and that was the Yamato. Mathematically, it also took roughly half the air complement of every carrier the U.S. had in service to actually sink it.

That said, battleships aren't really practical today. The Marines themselves have said that the 16" guns on the Iowa are too large, and that six inchers (like what's slated to be mounted on the DD(X)) are ideal. It doesn't help that things like the SS-N-19 (aptly named "Shipwreck") and other anti-ship missiles came along.

quote:

the overwhelming majority of battleships sunk by carrier aircraft in WWII were either a.) built to the tonnage/armament confines of the Washington Treaty and/or b.) Not in a battle-ready status.

That may have more to do with the US Navy having few Battleships at sea in 1941-42 after Pearl Harbour, and the Japanese considered the primary offensive arm of their fleets as the carriers. The Japanse saw the carriers as being more effective, and the greatest threat therefore the primary targets for attack. This was a view that the US Navy had to take after Pearl Harbour, but one that they quickly realised was the correct one.

WW2 showed that the main threats to the Battleships were mines and aircraft. All but one or two of the British Battleships during that war were sunk by mines, or more often by aircraft. Aircraft does not mean carrier aircraft alone, most air attacks came from ground basied aircraft and in European theatre only the British had and used Carriers. Even HMS Prince of Wales, which was sunk by Japanese air attack, was attacked by ground baised aircraft, not carriers.

quote:

Originally posted by dfez:
Go back and look at all the battleships that were sunk in WWII. Almost all were sunk by air attack ( I know-the Bismarck was just disabled by air attack). With today's sea skimming, radar guided missiles they would present the ideal target. They could be easily overwhelmed by a coordinated attack. They are just too big, slow, expensive, and labor intensive to be of any use.

Big? Absolutely. Slow? Not so much. An Iowa class BB can make 30+ knots, and was one of the fastest ships in the fleet while in commission (and that includes the most recent activations). The biggest issue for the old BB's, beyond the inefficiency of operating them, is that they lacked integrated radar/anti-air missle systems that made them reliant on picket ships to take out long range air targets. But I'm also pretty sure the armor packages on them make them a bit more sturdy and able to absorb hits better than anything currently afloat.

quote:

Originally posted by Rommel:

In fact, there was only ONE battleship sunk by carrier aircraft that didn't fall into one or both of the above criteria, and that was the Yamato. Mathematically, it also took roughly half the air complement of every carrier the U.S. had in service to actually sink it.

I do9n't know where you are getting your naval history, but you are simply wrong about this. Musashi, Yamato's sister ship, was sunk at the Sibuyan Sea on October 24, 1944 by air attack from the US carriers Intrepid, Franklin, Lexington, and Essex. The only time Musashi fired it's guns in anger was in the futile attempt to defend itself from the attack. I can't imagine where you got the idea that it took half the air resources of the US Navy to sink Yamato. The US Fifth fleet waiting for Yamato at Okinawa had 40 aircraft carriers ready to confront the battleship. It took planes from just 2 of them, the Hornet and the Bennington to reduce the Yamato to a burning hulk which exploded and sank within about 5 hours of the start of the battle
Armynurse, They may have been fast for surface ships in the WWII era, but they are awfully slow in the era of supersonic jets and cruise missiles. I don't see how they could survive a coordinated attack with modern antiship weapons from an actual enemy. As long as we are going to attack defenseless third world countries, why would we need the firepower and any actual militarily advanced foe would destroy them long before they could get within gun range. I suggest looking at the effects on battleships at the Operation Crossroads tests to really understand why there aren't any battleships roaming the seas and probably never will be again.

quote:

Armynurse, They may have been fast for surface ships in the WWII era, but they are awfully slow in the era of supersonic jets and cruise missiles. I don't see how they could survive a coordinated attack with modern antiship weapons from an actual enemy. As long as we are going to attack defenseless third world countries, why would we need the firepower and any actual militarily advanced foe would destroy them long before they could get within gun range. I suggest looking at the effects on battleships at the Operation Crossroads tests to really understand why there aren't any battleships roaming the seas and probably never will be again.
Ignored post by dfez posted 03-27-08 06:47 PM Show Post

Previous Topic | Next Topic powered

They can't survive a coordinated attack...with an enemy that has air superiority....No ship can, as no airfield could either.

The Aircraft Carrier is much less survivable, than a BB. We still use CV's, because we can protecet them with airpower...as we could a BB.

My original argument was that a BB could take multiple hits...they can. But are they invincible?...obviously not, but they are much more survivable to attack than any Naval vessel ever created.

Are they useful? H@ll yes. Can we afford them? No.

DFEZ...you bring up a lot of good points. But our Navy would be much better off with Battleships...than without.

X, the single best way to survive attack is not to be able to be found. Modern nations can easily track large units with radar satellites and know their locations at all times. Submarines are much more difficult to find and then attack. The conversion of the 4 Ohio class subs to carry 154 vertical launch cruise missiles pretty much obviates the need for heavy surface ships for bombardment. The Ohios can hide undetected anywhere in the oceans and b0mbard targets from 1000 miles away with far less need for crew. The only way even our carriers can survive is if we are fighting enemies that can't fight back. Without total air dominance, as you say, they too are sitting ducks.

quote:

Originally posted by dfez:
Armynurse, They may have been fast for surface ships in the WWII era, but they are awfully slow in the era of supersonic jets and cruise missiles. I don't see how they could survive a coordinated attack with modern antiship weapons from an actual enemy.

A BB is faster than the majority of the current fleet (again capable of cruising at 30+ knots is not slow for ANY warship in ANY era). Your arguement could apply to ANY surface warship.

As for surviving a coordianted attack, here is my take. Yes they do not have the integrated surface to air radar capable of coordinating a defense....but neither do carriers. Both rely on picket escorts for air defense beyond close range. They were designed to slug it out toe-to-toe with ships like the Yamato, so their armor was made to absorb multiple hits from 16+" naval rifles. Do modern anti-ship missles carry the same (or more) payload as those shells? As for offensive hitting, it does not have the range of a carrier, but it is capable of carrying more anti-ship missles than her escorts. Not to mention she outguns anything in the water if it ever came to that.

I'm not saying that they are the ultimate floating weapon. But they do have certain charcteristics that make them desirable.

quote:

X, the single best way to survive attack is not to be able to be found. Modern nations can easily track large units with radar satellites and know their locations at all times. Submarines are much more difficult to find and then attack. The conversion of the 4 Ohio class subs to carry 154 vertical launch cruise missiles pretty much obviates the need for heavy surface ships for bombardment. The Ohios can hide undetected anywhere in the oceans and b0mbard targets from 1000 miles away with far less need for crew. The only way even our carriers can survive is if we are fighting enemies that can't fight back. Without total air dominance, as you say, they too are sitting ducks.

I totally agree with everything you said. The submarine is the most survivable weapon system on the planet. In the future, the "Arsenal Ship" could be the most effective strike platform. Google it.

Now I'm going to tell you a long story...of why we could use Battleships...It's complicated, and will take a while to get my points across.

The fact that a weaponsystem is vulnerable, does not necessarily render it obsolete. If that were true, we'd have no INFANTRY..or Tanks.

The infantryman is the most vulnerable "weaponsystem" on the planet. But, to control an enemy...we need "boots on the ground." Tanks our sitting ducks without airsupremecy. But Tanks, supported by airpower...totally dominate land warfare. Noone is calling for the "end of Tanks."

Because we are a superpower, we need airpower. Why not eliminate the entire USAF? An airbase is certainly more vulnerable than any Aircraft Carrier. You rarely here that point being made.

At least the carrier is constantly changing positions...which leads to the enemy constantly needing to "retarget." An airbase is the most vulnerable target in the world.

There are many levels of warfare, and each of our weapon systems serves a purpose. For smaller scale wars, we need infantry troopsand Tanks, supported by airpower, or those troops are useless.

For theater level wars, we need the ability to project that airpower. The USAF is the most potent force available...when it comes to projecting airpower. They are however, LIMITED by RANGE.

The Aircraft Carrier gives our nation, the ability to project airpower, anytime...and anywhere.

Because the Carrier Strike Groups are constantly deployed around the world...the enemy is aware that they are at risk from US attack, at a moments notice.

That is what is known as a "credible threat," which is why, whenever there is a national emergency, the first question the Presiident of the USA often asks...is..."Where are the Carriers."

If we need to attack an enemy, the carrier, parked off the enemies coast (25 Miles is international waters) means we don't need permission/cooperation from other countries to exact our will.

The USAF relies on foreign countries to allow us to utilize their "cooperating bases" to operate from...(Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, NATO Partners, Turkey, etc)

If those "host nations" denied us access to operate from their lands...our USAF...would be NEUTRALIZED.

America, has built the only military in the world, that can project sustained power anywhere in the world. I WILL ARGUE THIS WITH ANY TAKERS. That sustained power comes in many forms...The Carrier Strike Group (CSG) for Air Power.

And the Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG) to deploy Marine Corps Infantry Forces. The ESG allows the US a "Forced Entry Capability."

If we need to invade a country, to exact our will, we need the USMC, transported on Amphibious Shipping (USN and MSC) to bring the fight to foreign soil. Countries friendly to us, like Saudi Arabia in Desert Storm 1, may not be willing participants ia a future engagement.

The U.S. Army is not designed to offer that forced entry capability. The 101st Airborne and 82nd Airborne...have forced entry capability. But they can only project "Light Infantry Forces,"...and connot sustain them.

That is why we have a "Marine Corps." The USMC is an infantry force that is constantly deployed on Naval Shipping, and can insert Infantry Forces anywhere, anytime. Once the USMC invades an enemy, it will acquire Sea ports and Air Ports. Which will be used to transport our "occupational force inland." That force being the larger more powerful, U.S. ARMY.

If we can maintain superiority in the AIR, as well as SPACE, INTELL, CYBERSPACE, etc. We have can provide our "Carriers," "Air Bases," Infantry, Tanks, etc...The protection they need to prosecute our National Policy.

If we do face a situation where we need to conduct an Amphibious Invasion, we will need every asset available, Carriers, USAF Bombing campaigns, etc.

BUT... If we had Battle Ships, they could provide sustained firepower, In any weather, (unmatched by anything we now have available)...to protect those marines that would be "storming the beach."

Whether or not a BB could survive multiple hits is not very relevant any more since that isn't going to ever happen again. No one is going to invest the money and resources in a battle ship which CAN be sunk by a single hit from a nucl@ar cruise missile which, at least 2 of our possible enemies do have. The same applies to the CVs. The only reason our fleet of carriers are useful is because we can use them against lesser enemies. There doesn't seem to be any credible threat that the BBs could be useful against that would justify their expense of operation and maintenance as well as the whole fleet of support vessels needed to keep them running and protected at sea. And , yes, my argument does apply to any surface ship. The BBs are the perfect example of the folly of planning to refight the last war. They were obsolete when they first put to sea and the Old Boys in the Gun Club wasted a lot of time, money, and energy building and operating them when the now paradigm was clearly in sight.

DFEZ...I teach this stuff to senior officers...it's my job. If you want to argue ...bring it on. If you're right, and I'm wrong...maybe we should change jobs.

Excellent post ANB!

quote:

Whether or not a BB could survive multiple hits is not very relevant any more since that isn't going to ever happen again. No one is going to invest the money and resources in a battle ship which CAN be sunk by a single hit from a nucl@ar cruise missile which, at least 2 of our possible enemies do have. The same applies to the CVs. The only reason our fleet of carriers are useful is because we can use them against lesser enemies. There doesn't seem to be any credible threat that the BBs could be useful against that would justify their expense of operation and maintenance as well as the whole fleet of support vessels needed to keep them running and protected at sea. And , yes, my argument does apply to any surface ship. The BBs are the perfect example of the folly of planning to refight the last war. They were obsolete when they first put to sea and the Old Boys in the Gun Club wasted a lot of time, money, and energy building and operating them when the now paradigm was clearly in sight.

Wrong. ALL of of our weapon systems are vulnerable to attack...that doesn't mean we shouldnt have them. And its debatable that a single missile would take out a BB.

You are correct with your statement about "fighting the last war." During WW2, Old naval leadership thought the BB was the Big Stick weapon....

That is not what I'm getting at. The BB is the Ultimate Fire Support Weapon system. It provides unmatched firepower.

If the US was serious, they could use the BB hulls, and put new powerplants, systems that would be more economical....making them cost effective.

The BB is also the perfect weapon for littoral warfare...They are not going to be sunk from a single missile or mine hit. I KNOW...Because I'm privy to the data.

quote:

The same applies to the CVs. The only reason our fleet of carriers are useful is because we can use them against lesser enemies.

Totally WRONG. Did you not read my previous post? We have CV's to project Air Power. They are no more vulnerable than an AIR BASE. In fact, they are less vulnerable.

I guess the only reason we have an Air Force is to attack lesser enemies?

Deployed carriers are nothing more than floating "USAF Bases," Only they can reach the enemy sooner...And can do it without other nations permission. The USAF cannot provide sustained airpower, without the use of "Allied Bases."

quote:

There doesn't seem to be any credible threat that the BBs could be useful against that would justify their expense of operation and maintenance as well as the whole fleet of support vessels needed to keep them running and protected at sea

Did you not understand my original premise? The BB is a "Fire Support" platform...and the ultimate one yet developed. Fire support consists of:

1. Close Air Support
2. Artillery/Mortars
3. Naval Gunfire

All of which are EXPENSIVE to maintain/operate. You could argue that deployed Fighter Squadrons are too expensive to operate. Really? Tell that to the mother of a Soldier or Marine...who needs that FIRE SUPPORT.

I am a Fire Support Coordination Instructor at EWTGLANT. I am also a qualified JTAC/FAC (Forward air Controller). I teach Senior Officers Expeditionary Warfare, Maritime Prepositioning, and Expeditionary Staff Planning. I've logged over 5000 hours in naval aircraft. I don't argue with infantry types about small arms capabilities...or I stick to my field of expertise....