quote:

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.

They were obsolete in their intended mission of "SEA DOMINANCE."...like you mentioned earlier.

They did however, prove to be very valuable as a Fire Support Platform. That is why they were used in Korea, Vietnam and Desert Storm. Politicians, and Military leaders procure and maintain weapons through "political, budgetary...and finally needs."

quote:

Modern nations can easily track large units with radar satellites and know their locations at all times

Wrong again. If we have Air/Space/Sea Superiority, we can neutralize the enemies command and control nodes. We currently have the capability to render useless....any modern nation's ability to track our ships, air bases etc. And once we do that...we can exact our WILL...even if it is the most vulnerable weaponsystem, yet most IMPORTANT weaponsystem in the world...the Infantryman.

quote:

Originally posted by XcontrolD:

quote:

Modern nations can easily track large units with radar satellites and know their locations at all times

Wrong again. If we have Air/Space/Sea Superiority, we can neutralize the enemies command and control nodes. We currently have the capability to render useless....any modern nation's ability to track our ships, air bases etc. And once we do that...we can exact our WILL...even if it is the most vulnerable weaponsystem, yet most IMPORTANT weaponsystem in the world...the Infantryman.

The use of any of those exiting capabilities will be US starting WWIII and it will matter little what the infantry men do.

quote:

Originally posted by dfez:

quote:

Originally posted by XcontrolD:

quote:

Modern nations can easily track large units with radar satellites and know their locations at all times

Wrong again. If we have Air/Space/Sea Superiority, we can neutralize the enemies command and control nodes. We currently have the capability to render useless....any modern nation's ability to track our ships, air bases etc. And once we do that...we can exact our WILL...even if it is the most vulnerable weaponsystem, yet most IMPORTANT weaponsystem in the world...the Infantryman.

The use of any of those exiting capabilities will be US starting WWIII and it will matter little what the infantry men do.

So will hitting a naval vessel with a nuclear tipped cruise missle.

If I may put forth my two cents in this discussion. The battle wagon was obsolete when our main supply of them was sunk at Pearl Harbor. The carriers, fortunately were out to sea. The Japanese that day proved the superiority of the carrier over the battleship. The carrier has the ability to take the battle to the enemy in a way the battle wagon couldn't. Sure, they could lay offshore and fire salvo after salvo with their 16 inch guns, but that really did not seem to do that much good on Iwo or Guadalcanal. As far as the 21st century goes, a destroyer, submarine or aircraft with Tomahawk cruise missiles can do so much more than the battleship, but with fewer men and less money. I do not agree that the carriers could be replaced or are a poor second to local airbases. Our F-117s and B-2s took off from bases in the US and completed how many hundreds of sorties in Afghanistan and Kuwait and Iraq? Hardly a requisite there for a local airbase. Whether there are ever any more large amphibious landings is a total non sequitor. A battleship is no more effective a support for an amphibious invasion than any number of other craft. Even the face of amphib operations has changed drastically. I miss the elegant old ladies as much as anyone, but they had outlived their effecrtiveness when the aircraft carrier was developed.

quote:

Hardly a requisite there for a local airbase.

One small quibble, Lordfrog...

Nearby local staging is generally preferable. Even though B2's are stealthy, the tankers they refuel from, aren't, and are readily tracked and/or attacked. Against a more capable opponent, launching attacks halfway around the world from North American bases is destined to have high casualties. It works when you have an ill-equipped enemy with no tactical abilities.



Carriers are targets, because of their power (and because they are a threat just by their presence). Thus, they are heavily escorted. Having a carrier show up offshore is never good news, even if no strikes are ever launched from it.

Same with SSN's. When the Falklands issues were brewing, the U.K. sent a T-boat down there, and that presence alone kept Argentina bottled up for quite some time. Then when the Argentine Navy tried to make a move, 3 WWII-vintage torpedoes from a T-boat sent them back to their piers for the remainder of the conflict.

Like you and others have pointed out, carriers and subs are a much greater threat (and nowadays much more effective) than a battleship with such massive manpower demands.

quote:

Originally posted by cybermortis:

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.

Actually, the American battleships sunk at Pearl are included in the tally (as WWII started in 1939), all of them were Washington Treaty compliant and were not in a full battle-ready status when they were sunk. They still fall into the two criteria I listed.

The Yamato (or its class, my books have been "re-organized", so I can't find my source material) was/were the only one(s) which didn't fall into either criteria.

Also, you'll note I specifically said carrier aircraft. The Wales was Washington Treaty-compliant too. Being sunk by ground-based aircraft isn't a strike against BBs, any carrier fighting a near-peer opponent would be at a disadvantage against ground-based aircraft as well.

quote:

Originally posted by armynurseboi:

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.

Which isn't saying much in the era of big anti-ship missiles, e.g. the Russian "Granit"/SS-N-19 "Shipwreck" I referenced earlier. In terms of its overall mass and speed at impact, the kinetic energy on impact would probably be equivalent to getting smacked with a 32" inch shell, and that's without arming it with a nuclear warhead. Even the U.S. Navy has acknowledged that a single hit would seriously mess up any ship we have, if not sink it outright - including the Iowas, unless it hit a turret face and even then the resulting damage would probably be so severe as to render the turret inoperable and screw up everything around it.

If we're going to pull any WWII-era ship out of service, we should raise the Prinz Eugen from its grave. Helped sink a ship twice its size and survived the Bikini Atoll nuclear tests before we capsized it because it was hopelessly radioactive.

Rommel, I still don't see what the point is whether the Battleships were Washington Treaty compliant or not. The Yamato and Musashi were far outside the Treaty restrictions, fully operational, and armed to the teeth at sea and were unable to defend themselves against air attack. If they couldn't defend themselves, you have to assume any other class couldn't either. They were vast boondoggles of expense and materials that accomplished nothing and cost the lives of their crews. I finally found a photograph of one of the most significant reasons that the Battleship has no future. This is a photo of the Japanese cruiser Sakawa taken at Operation Crossroads before it sank after being struck by the shockwave of the airburst of a low yield nucle@r weapon 1/2 mile away and 1500 feet above.

I can't get the links to work-will post the picture.

During the Gulf War, Iraqi soldiers were seen on the imaging from the forward observing drones, surrendering to the drones!
Knowing that where the drones were, the 16 inch shells would soon follow!
With no air force and no navy against it, a battleship is invulnerable to land-based retaliation.
There's way too many places like that still simmering around the world.

Here's the link-

Sakawa-Crossroads
Ming, ever heard names like Silkworm, Exocet, or Shipwreck. These missiles can be purchased by third world countries and fired from primitive land based launchers.

quote:

ever heard names like Silkworm, Exocet, or Shipwreck. These missiles can be purchased by third world countries and fired from primitive land based launchers.

Ever heard the names: CIWS, Phalanx, RIM-116(RAM), Ship's Self Defense System (SSDS)?

The key term is cost-effective. Simply put for the cost of building and maintaining Battleships in service, you can build and opperate three or four smaller cruisers that can do the same jobs-with the advantage of being able to be in four places at once.

The situation becomes worse when you consider the effectivness of the weapon systems carried. Yes, the big guns on the Iowa could sink anything afloat today (Apart from another Iowa class ship, and maybe some of the big carriers) but they first have to get into range. The simple fact is that the Iowa could be sunk by a modern Frigate that had the brains to remain outside the range of the ships main guns.
It can be argued that the ships are perfect for shore-bombardment, but it is not cost effective to keep the Iowa's in service just so the Marines have heavy artilery in the first few hours of an invasion. Smaller (and cheaper) ships can provide close support with more accurate weapons, and longer ranged support can be done with aircraft or missiles.

quote:

Originally posted by formermarine0341:

quote:

ever heard names like Silkworm, Exocet, or Shipwreck. These missiles can be purchased by third world countries and fired from primitive land based launchers.

Ever heard the names: CIWS, Phalanx, RIM-116(RAM), Ship's Self Defense System (SSDS)?

Sure I've heard of them, but I've also heard of all the problems that pop up with these systems, down times, software problems, not having the switches set correctly, etc. None of these complex systems have ever been tested in a live fire coordinated attack scenario and they haven't been tested under sustained attack with battle damage. There was a major study I read about 20 years ago (Scientific American, I think) that detailed how the defense systems of major surface ships could be beaten down quickly and , while I know there have been advances in defense since then, there have also been major advances in offense and it seems like the same principles apply. Cyber has it exactly right, it's really a question of cost/effectiveness and it really seems that the cost is not worth the effectiveness.

quote:

Originally posted by cybermortis:
The key term is cost-effective. Simply put for the cost of building and maintaining Battleships in service, you can build and opperate three or four smaller cruisers that can do the same jobs-with the advantage of being able to be in four places at once.

The situation becomes worse when you consider the effectivness of the weapon systems carried. Yes, the big guns on the Iowa could sink anything afloat today (Apart from another Iowa class ship, and maybe some of the big carriers) but they first have to get into range. The simple fact is that the Iowa could be sunk by a modern Frigate that had the brains to remain outside the range of the ships main guns.
It can be argued that the ships are perfect for shore-bombardment, but it is not cost effective to keep the Iowa's in service just so the Marines have heavy artilery in the first few hours of an invasion. Smaller (and cheaper) ships can provide close support with more accurate weapons, and longer ranged support can be done with aircraft or missiles.

But remember, a BB ALSO carries missles. More times more than a frigate can carry. And I am still skeptical that a single Exocet or similar type of anti-ship missle can sink a BB...which I cannot say the same for a frigate (which a single hit WILL take down). An Exocet (which is analagous to a Harpoon and Silkworm) carries a 500lbs high explosive warhead travelling at around 540mph. A 16" AP shell weight 2000+lbs and are going 2690fps (1800+mph). The destructive potential of each is totally different, as they aren't even in the same class. I won't even go into comparing a standard anti-ship missle to a tac nuke, as that is silly comparison. NO current surface ship can withstand a direct hit/near miss from one of those. And to use one would cross the nuclear threshold and more than likely cause a nuclear retalation, making ANY conventional force irrelavant.

Like I've said before, the biggest consideration of why they aren't still in active service is that they cost too much too operate when we dont' really need their capability at this time. Howeve, 2 have been mandated to stay in stasis in case they need to be reactivated...but short of an all-out war, that's not going to happen.

quote:

If I may put forth my two cents in this discussion. The battle wagon was obsolete when our main supply of them was sunk at Pearl Harbor. The carriers, fortunately were out to sea. The Japanese that day proved the superiority of the carrier over the battleship. The carrier has the ability to take the battle to the enemy in a way the battle wagon couldn't. Sure, they could lay offshore and fire salvo after salvo with their 16 inch guns, but that really did not seem to do that much good on Iwo or Guadalcanal. As far as the 21st century goes, a destroyer, submarine or aircraft with Tomahawk cruise missiles can do so much more than the battleship, but with fewer men and less money. I do not agree that the carriers could be replaced or are a poor second to local airbases. Our F-117s and B-2s took off from bases in the US and completed how many hundreds of sorties in Afghanistan and Kuwait and Iraq? Hardly a requisite there for a local airbase. Whether there are ever any more large amphibious landings is a total non sequitor. A battleship is no more effective a support for an amphibious invasion than any number of other craft. Even the face of amphib operations has changed drastically. I miss the elegant old ladies as much as anyone, but they had outlived their effecrtiveness when the aircraft carrier was developed.

Excellent. You earned an A...in my Fire Support course.

I do respectfully disagree with some of your statements.

F-117's don't normally fly intercontinental missions. They are bases in Saudi Arabia...Crew day limits the 24 plus hour missions of a single piloted subsonic aircraft. B-2's can do the aforementioned, because they are not single piloted...meaning the other pilots can sleep...and continue the mission.

The comment that a Battle Ship is no more an effective fire support weapon system is simply wrong. Cruisers have limited numbers of cruise missiles. They also do not have the volume/sustained firepower of a BB.

You are correct in saying that the DD/CG is more effective ....but only for for MEU sized Amphibious Assaults, but for MEB and MEF sized OPS...a BB is a Force Multiplier.

As Far as the BB not being effective in the Pacific Campaign...I also think you're wrong here. The very threat of the BB forced the JAP's to hide in caves. This allowed our beach landing teams a much "easier amphibious assault.

I never said that the BB should replace modern missile shooters. It would however greatly compliment them.

Late entry: The F-117 and B-2 are not primary Fire Support Weapons...they are designed to take out enemy C2 Nodes, early in a Strategic Campaign. They are strategic ...not tactical weapons. So mentioning them...in an discussion about fire support is irrelavant.

They do not offer the sustained firepower of dedicated fire support weapon systems. And nothing has more profound sustained fire support capability than a BB.

Like I said...it's my job ti know this. I don't just dabble in military history.

quote:

Ming, ever heard names like Silkworm, Exocet, or Shipwreck.

.
I believe the only time Exocets have been used in anger was in the Falklands War, and it worked!
But then, the Argentine Navy is one of the better ones, a formidable foe, not like the knuckle-dragging chest-pounding fools in the Middle East who have much more money than sense or even the ability to use the weapons they buy at all!

quote:

Sure I've heard of them, but I've also heard of all the problems that pop up with these systems, down times, software problems, not having the switches set correctly, etc. None of these complex systems have ever been tested in a live fire coordinated attack scenario and they haven't been tested under sustained attack with battle damage. There was a major study I read about 20 years ago (Scientific American, I think) that detailed how the defense systems of major surface ships could be beaten down quickly and , while I know there have been advances in defense since then, there have also been major advances in offense and it seems like the same principles apply. Cyber has it exactly right, it's really a question of cost/effectiveness and it really seems that the cost is not worth the effectiveness.

No Defensive system is perfect, nor is any offensive system perfect.

It is always easy to argue the cost effectiveness argument....when it is not your behind being covered on a beach landing....

How many Marines in the Pacific do you reckon said: "Those 16 inch broadsides are really expensive....I wish they would just use 5 inch guns, they are cheaper...."

Irreguardless of whether they are cost effective or not, the Iowa Class was a very good Fire Support Platform and is not any more or less vulnerable to air/missle attack than any other ship.

But I agree, they will likely never see service again.

Lastly, when people say things like:

quote:

it is not cost effective to keep the Iowa's in service just so the Marines have heavy artilery in the first few hours of an invasion.

and....

quote:

it's really a question of cost/effectiveness and it really seems that the cost is not worth the effectiveness.

....really ticks me off....you are saying (whether your intention or not) that Marines don't deserve the big guns supporting them, because we (Marines) are not worth the cost.

Thats just how I see it...

quote:

Sure I've heard of them, but I've also heard of all the problems that pop up with these systems, down times, software problems, not having the switches set correctly, etc. None of these complex systems have ever been tested in a live fire coordinated attack scenario and they haven't been tested under sustained attack with battle damage. There was a major study I read about 20 years ago (Scientific American, I think) that detailed how the defense systems of major surface ships could be beaten down quickly and , while I know there have been advances in defense since then, there have also been major advances in offense and it seems like the same principles apply. Cyber has it exactly right, it's really a question of cost/effectiveness and it really seems that the cost is not worth the effectiveness.

really...these are effective weapons...what are you basing your criticisms on?

quote:

None of these complex systems have ever been tested in a live fire coordinated attack scenario and they haven't been tested under sustained attack with battle damage. There was a major study I read about 20 years ago (Scientific American, I think) that detailed how the defense systems of major surface ships could be beaten down quickly and , while I know there have been advances in defense since then, there have also been major advances in offense and it seems like the same principles apply. Cyber has it exactly right,

Wrong....this statement says it all. Consider the source..."Scientific American." Everything about this statement is wrong...but it is not the fault of the poster. He and Scientific American simply are not privy to the complete information.

quote:

Sure I've heard of them, but I've also heard of all the problems that pop up with these systems, down times, software problems, not having the switches set correctly, etc. None of these complex systems have ever been tested in a live fire coordinated attack scenario and they haven't been tested under sustained attack with battle damage.

Powerful statement. I disagree totally...what do you base this statement on?