quote:

Not trying to derail a battleship thread, but this was evident in the reorganization of the Air Force. SAC and TAC were worlds apart in terms of theory and doctrine when they were merged into ACC.

WELL SAID ..and EXACT! Wish I would have said this earlier. The merging of TAC and SAC into ACC reflect the merging of Tactical, Operational and Strategic capabilities, into "useable" capability for the JFC. (the 3 levels of war) Mil doctrine in the 60's and 70's was narrow in focus. ACC allows the Combatant Commander a wider range of options and capabilities.

quote:

Not trying to derail a battleship thread, but this was evident in the reorganization of the Air Force. SAC and TAC were worlds apart in terms of theory and doctrine when they were merged into ACC.

The development of ACC...paralells and is exactly what "Sea Basing" is all about. The combining of "Forced Entry Capable" Forces...ESG/ESF, and Army Aiborne forces...with Maritime Prepositioning Forces (MPF), into a single concept...

ALCON,

My intent was never to discredit DFEZ. I have enjoyed many great arguments with him. I debated him under other names...c26bt34c, macdaddy, and finally XcontrolD. He will undoubtably respond to my "barrage" with a well written counter argument.
He's too smart not to. I am, however, done with this thread. There are no winners or losers. I would'nt participate in a "site" like this if it weren't for posters like the magnificent DFEZ...wrong as he is..

I only read half of the first page of this thread, but had to respond.

I served on the USS Missouri for 2 1/2 years. I saw action with her in the first Gulf War. I know the Iowa-class ships intimately.

I also served on the Nimitz for 6 months, so am somewhat familiar with Carriers.

My opinion comes from firsthand EXPERIENCE, and not from historical conjecture.

And my opinion is........

I'd like to find the bureaucratic pinhead responsible for decommissioning the Battleships and kick his teeth in. Wrong, wrong, WRONG!

Once a Battleship sailor, always a Battleship sailor. I'll love that ship until the day I die.

quote:

Originally posted by dfez:
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.

Yes, I have heard of them. 2 of them were fired at the USS Missouri during the Gulf War. I was a crew member.

The missles fired at us were either Exocets or Silkworms, I don't recall which.

One missile splashed, the other was shot down by one of our escort ships, the HMS Gloucester.

Roughly 2 million bucks down the drain, and the Missouri didn't even get a paint chip.

Of course, you were never subjected to anything more than an occasional potshot from an enemy who, at best, was totally amateurish. Against a modern enemy who could launch a coordinated attack with torpedoes, aircraft, cruise missiles,etc.,possibly armed with nuclear warheads in an all out war, the ship would have simply been a hapless target . The Yamato and Musashi were slaughtered by literally hundreds of aircraft attacking at once with predictable results. You can't count on your enemy not being able to fight back.

quote:

Originally posted by dfez:
Of course, you were never subjected to anything more than an occasional potshot from an enemy who, at best, was totally amateurish. Against a modern enemy who could launch a coordinated attack with torpedoes, aircraft, cruise missiles,etc.,possibly armed with nuclear warheads in an all out war, the ship would have simply been a hapless target . The Yamato and Musashi were slaughtered by literally hundreds of aircraft attacking at once with predictable results. You can't count on your enemy not being able to fight back.

First of all, thanks for marginalizing my wartime combat experience. I take no offense (okay, I'm only slightly miffed but nothing major), but you might choose your words more carefully in the future. Others in the same situation could take a LOT of offense, and be justified in doing so.

Being attacked on multiple levels in a coordinated manner as you describe, a Carrier would simply be a hapless target as well. I mean, as long as we're taking air support completely out of the equation, the carrier doesn't get any either, amirite? In which case, a carrier is little more than a tin can whereas a Battleship can take a heck of a lot bigger beating and keep smilin'.

The introduction of Carriers is the main reason people seem to be using for the downfall of the Battleships, is why I chose that analogy.

The purpose of Battleships and Carriers (other than Projection of Power)....

Carriers are supposed to be a target. However, they are a target which can (probably, though not 100% certain) destroy any torpedoes, aircraft, cruise missiles, etc before it takes damage.....and then extend a net of air superiority to mitigate the chances of it happening again.

Battleships are supposed to be a target. However, they are an EXTREMELY hard target, and though it's native defenses aren't as complete as the planes from a Carrier, they are formidable nonetheless. CIWS, chaff launchers, sea-to-air missiles, Tomahawks, even the 5-inch guns have anti-aircraft shells available if I recall. And, it is my learned opinion born from actually serving on the ship and seeing her capabilities firsthand, that virtually nothing short of a nuke will sink it. Whatever does get through her native defenses (discounting escort ships as in the carrier example), she is built to take it and keep coming. Right into your face, mano-a-mano. Now THAT's a style that suits me just fine.

It is also my opinion from serving again in OIF that the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't truly comprehend how advanced our technology is and just how much we out-class them by. Technological gizmos and widgets are neat and all, and they work, but they are also largely unseen by the enemy and thus not understood.

There is NO misunderstanding a 16-inch gun firing a 1-ton shell. The comprehension of that is ingrained at the most primal level. You simply do not want to be on the wrong side of that exchange.

A post somewhere in this thread mentioned Iraquis in the Gulf War surrendering to unmanned drones. Yes, they did. The video from our targeting drones was fed live over the ship's TV system and I saw it. There was a story in the ship's newspaper about it too, I believe. And yes, the unconfirmed story was that they were afraid of our guns. I also saw us hit a jeep that was traveling down a road...it sucked for the guy in the jeep, but seeing a single tire bouncing along on its' lonesome was hilarious at the time! Yeah, I know I have a warped sense of humor

Another thing I see mentioned is the operating costs of the Battleships. While I concur they aren't cheap, I must point out that the Missouri carried 1500 crew, while a Carrier WITHOUT an air wing carries 3000. With an air wing, roughly 6000. For more efficiency, the diesel boilers could be cut up and removed and replaced with reactors. It wouldn't be an either quick or easy conversion, but it should be possible and far less expensive than an entirely new ship.

I'd better stay away from this thread (though I still need to go back and read the whole thing). I'm too emotionally attached to my ship, and might get myself in trouble posting here. Suffice it to say, I strongly believe the Battleships should still be in service and trying to change my opinion is not possible. I have sailed on one of these ships in the real world, and they are far more impressive than their already-impressive specifications lead to believe. You are entirely entitled to your opinion of course, but sadly I can never agree with it. My loyalty to my ship wouldn't allow it even if I didn't believe I was right.

quote:

Battleships are supposed to be a target. However, they are an EXTREMELY hard target, and though it's native defenses aren't as complete as the planes from a Carrier, they are formidable nonetheless. CIWS, chaff launchers, sea-to-air missiles, Tomahawks, even the 5-inch guns have anti-aircraft shells available if I recall. And, it is my learned opinion born from actually serving on the ship and seeing her capabilities firsthand, that virtually nothing short of a nuke will sink it. Whatever does get through her native defenses (discounting escort ships as in the carrier example), she is built to take it and keep coming. Right into your face, mano-a-mano. Now THAT's a style that suits me just fine.

I don`t want to diminish your service of your country in any way, but that`s what the crew on the Yamato and Musashi thought too, not only those, HMS Prince of Wales and it`s escort HMS Repulse thought, The Bismarck was crippled by a Biplane Swordfish Torpedo Bomber,and later destroyed. HMS Barham sunk by a torpedo Salvo from a U-boat.

To be blunt, you combat role was to sail back and forth and wave your hands and say LOOK, I'M OVER HERE! while the war went over there. The reason the Battleship was consigned to history was that intelligent decision makers read the results of WWII and went in a different direction. One of the exercises we did in my graduate program in Strategic Studies was figure out how to defeat one of our carrier battle groups. It wasn't that hard and the methods would apply even more to a Battleship Group. BTW, Fats, you can add the Tirpitz to that list, too and the 3 battleships that were knocked out at Taranto. No one will ever build or sail a Battleship again and you'll just have to get used to the lost cause. I live in Iowa City, Iowa and , like other kids my age, I grew up loving the Iowa but I also grew up loving steam locomotives and they are essentially gone too, for similar reasons. It's over.

How could I forget those ships, as well as HMS Royal Oak, 60 years ago yesterday it was sunk by U-47 in Scarpa Flow.

The Italian Battleship Roma was sunk by the first successfull guided weapon attack, in 1943, by the Germans using weapons launched from a Dornier Bomber.

The argument that Carriers are easier to sink that Battleships is misleading. While this is almost certainly true of the smaller carriers, the larger ones are probably just as capable of taking missile and torpedo hits as any battleship. While they don't have the armour, they are large ships that would require several hits to sink. As I posted quite some time ago the only surface ship I can think of that could take a direct hit from a 16 inch shell and remain afloat would be a Nimitz class carrier. (Apart from a Battleship of course).

It also misses out an important point - range. A Battleship HAS to get within visual range to use its guns...which by default means that the BB has to show its location to the people who want to sink it. A Carrier in contrast can remain hundreds of miles away, as such it can hit opponents without being seen or its location being known.

Now the point that BB's are quite capable of engaging targets outside visual range using anti-ship missiles is a valid one. But it is also a point that applies to any other surface warship.

The simple facts are that BB's are just not cost effective. While they remain powerful surface ships, they lack the utility of Carriers and have VERY limited combat role today. Basically the only system they have that can't be fitted onto smaller and cheaper ships are the main guns. And these guns are only really helpful for supporting assault troops within a few miles of the shore.

For every other role smaller ships are better and cheaper. While it is true that they lack the armour of a BB, the golden rule is that it is better not to be hit in the first place. Plus the three or four Frigates/destroyers you can deploy in place of a single BB can sail as a group to provide additional support for each other. Just as importantly four frigates can saturate a targets defences with more missile fire in an instant - and from different directions - than a BB is capable of managing.

In essence the BB is a very expensive white elephant. They are too important/expensive to risk loosing...but to be fully effective they have to sail well within the danger zone and have to get to such a range that their opponents know exactly where they are.

Carriers have one last advantage - if you want to upgrade/resupply their weapons you don't have to call them back home. A Carrier can upgrade its primary weapons system in less than a day at sea anywhere in the world. Why? Simple, a Carriers main weapon is its aircraft. And these can fly in, land and be ready for action in a matter of hours. The same holds for resupplying. If a Carrier needs more munitions, food or crewmen they can be flown in within a few hours. These are the major reasons why Carriers can remain at sea for months or years at a time without loosing their combat potential. BB's can't do any of this - if they need to resupply they either have to wait for a supply ship (which has to be protected) or go back to port. Likewise a BB that needs its main weapons upgraded/replaced/repaired has to head back to port.


Using the ships lost during the Falklands war as evidence for or against the BB is misleading. The ships that were hit and sunk were close into the shore, and as such had very short notice about being under attack. (In fact the attacking jets were not hit by AA fire. Rather one was shot down by one of the Harriers providing air support).
Another reason for the Falklands war being misleading is that one of the frigates lost suffered a minor malfunction in its point defence computer. The system at this time was known to occasionally lock up, requiring that the system was reset. This resetting required flicking a row of switches off, then back on again. The crew were capable of doing this in about a second, but they simply didn't have the time to finish resetting the system in this case.

It is also worth noting that ships of this date were constructed without any armour protection at all. The logic that had taken hold since the 1960's was that anti-ship missiles were quite capable of punching through even the thickest armour. So their was little point in weighing ships down with thick belts of armour that wouldn't do anything to protect the ship. Experience from the Falklands war resulted in this view being re-examined. It was decided that the original view was correct - you couldn't provide ships with strong enough armour to protect against AS missiles, unless the ship was VERY big or you were willing to have a very slow ship. However ships after the Falklands started being designed or refitted with armour to critical areas. While the armour was, and is, incapable of protecting against a direct hit it can/does provide protection against anything short of this.

The real nail in the BB's coffin was not aircraft or carriers, but missiles. Carriers threw BB's into the grave, but it was the advent of anti-ship missiles that could hit ships from a hundred miles or more away that filled in the hole. With AS missiles even a humble Frigate could hit and probably sink a BB without having to come under fire itself. And even if it did get attacked and sunk Frigates are cheaper and easier to replace than any BB.

Carriers project power. Parking a carrier offshore has had a very large psychological impact in the past.

Whether they are a formidible weapon or not, battleships have not tended to have the same widespread impact.


Yes, it's basically true that if an Oscar decides to let loose with a full salvo of missiles and then toss out some torpedoes too (especially if planned to simultaneously attack from various points, and not just all following along single-file), the defenses of either one would be swamped. No matter how much lead* a CIWS can put in the air, it can't do it in 24 different directions all at once. Even if the warheads were only HE and not 500kt, neither ship will likely survive. What has a better chance against a lone missle is largely immaterial in terms of combat effectiveness and defense.


The other issue is that if a carrier is hit, the airborne craft are not neutralized... they can carry on with the counteroffensive and then divert to other landings. If a battleship is hit, it's done for the day.



*Ya, I know... it's a euphamism.

Let's look at this from a couple of perspectives.

First, no one is making light of ANYONE'S service time. I don't care if you were a clerk back at headquarters, a front-line infantry guy, a pilot or whatever, you went, and you served. Good enough for me.

But the Missouri was in a condition where total air superiority had been achieved early on. There was no air to surface threat. There WAS a constant CAP on all of the ships operating in that theater of operations.

Now let's look at two different groups of ships, shall we?

First let's take a Surface Action Group consisting of the USS Missouri, a couple of late flight Ticonderoga cruisers, a couple of anti-submarine destroyers and a couple of frigates.

Granted there is a lot of firepower there for defense. But the problem is, you have to wait for the missiles to come to you. You are giving the bad guys time to set up and shoot. And that's bad, it gives the initiative to the enemy. And eventually, and I mean in less than a couple of hours, a determined enemy, with the aircraft to use, will get through.

You'll start to lose ships, until even the Missouri is out there alone. And then it's over.

Your statement about it taking a nuke to sink the Missouri is not supported by any documentation that I can find. Granted, it will take a lot of punishment, but it is going to become overwhelmed and go down. With no real way to stop the attacks at the source.

Now let's look at a carrier battle group, same amount of ships, but substitute your favorite carrier for the Missouri.

You have airborne radar up, in the form of E-2 Hawkeye aircraft. That gives a warning range of several hundred miles from the aircraft. Station a couple up there, far enough out, and no ship or aircraft is sneaking up on you.

Next you have interceptor aircraft, some on CAP, others available on deck. Ready 5, Ready 10, Ready 15 and so on. And those are maximum times. With threats inbound, there's a LOT of motivation to get aircraft launched quickly.

Now let's say it's a combination air/surface attack inbound. You've already spotted the ships, likely before they get into firing range. Those you go after with airborne launched and ship launched Harpoons. Gives the bad guys something to fret about. If there are ground launchers, a combination attack on those with standoff missiles is also in order.

Next you go after the inbound aircraft.

Oh, to be sure you can wait until they fire their missiles, but why? It's much easier to shoot the archer than the arrow.

Knock down the plane with your interceptors before they fire, and you've got a lot less to worry about.

Then any "leakers" that get through can be handled the same as by the surface action group, Aegis defenses, CIWS and the like.

In conclusion, with a surface action group you MUST knock down the missiles.

With a carrier group, you go after the shooters and eliminate or greatly lessen the missile threat.

(I purposely didn't address submarine threats, since basically both groups, even without an attached fast-attack submarine, have pretty much an equal chance of detecting and defeating sub-surface threats.)

Stand by for a lengthy post on this. Something was a trigger word, and I just don't have a clue what it was.

Standing by... still nothing almost 6 hours later... guess the ModIvy is busy today.

Although I do notice that I can't spell "euphemism".

Scott - Well put, nice post putting things into prospective like that.

This is why Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and Georgia are being converted to SSGNs. They will carry up to 154 Cruise Missiles in cluster launchers in their vertical launch tubes. They will be able to hide anywhere in the ocean, launch a huge barrage of highly accurate land attacks without surfacing, and sail away without being found. You can't shoot what you can't see.

quote:

Originally posted by scott9282:
Stand by for a lengthy post on this. Something was a trigger word, and I just don't have a clue what it was.

Yeah, happened to my lengthy post above as well. No idea what word (or words) triggered the filter, but it seems my post was allowed about 2 days later. I'm glad it finally did, took me around 90-120 minutes to type it up LOL. I no longer have any idea what I wrote, but I think it's all there.

The mods are just backed up, I'd think it will show up soon

I still have yet to read this whole thread, I'd better get started on that.

I won't be posting in this thread much, if at all. I've made my position known, and nothing will sway it......admittedly I have a strong emotional attachment to my ship (Missouri) which likely affects and/or reinforces my opinion.

Since it is not possible for me to change my opinion, further input into this thread on my part would simply be argumentative, and I don't want that.

I will only reiterate two things.....having actually sailed on the ship, her real-world capabilities far exceed her already impressive paper specifications. She protected me well when it mattered most, and I can do no less in return as a matter of honor.

I think that the battleship has not completely died out. The legacy of these old 'battle wagons' has lived on in the form of heavy cruisers. Replace the 18-inch guns with Tomahawk missles, and the AA with SAMs, and they're very much alike (except that the cruiser was smaller).

quote:

The legacy of these old 'battle wagons' has lived on in the form of heavy cruisers.

Heavy Cruisers are and always have been a class to themselves. It could be argued that they date to the 1700's, if not earlier, since a 'Cruiser' was any ship that patrolled shipping lanes - either looking for energy ships to fight or capture or trying to protect the ships of its own nation. This designation wasn't, therefore, originally a specific class. Rather it was an indication as to what a ship was being used for.

Much the same held for all the original meanings of 'class'. Battle-ship comes from 'Line of battle ship', Frigate was originally just used to describe a ship that was built low and long - the English ship Great Henry was called 'a great frigate' several times, even though she was a line of battle ship with over 100 guns. Destroyer comes from 'Torpedo destroyer'.
'Heavy' before a class/type just means something with bigger-guns than you'd normally find on ships of that type of ship. The USS Constitution was called a 'Heavy Frigate' because she carried 24 cannons, rather than the 18 pounders that were standard on Frigates of the period.

The problem with ship classes is that the 'class' of a ship is not always etched in steel, and two ships of the same class can differ considerably in terms of size and ability even within the same navy. There are/have been Frigates that are larger than some destroyers. 'Light' Cruisers that are not far off the power of some 'heavy' cruisers and of course there are some 'heavy cruisers' who'd fire-power surpasses that of many Battleships.

Even 'Carrier' is related to a ships function, rather than its size and capabilities. The (current) Carriers in service with the Royal Navy are tiny compared to the average Carrier in service with the US Navy...but they are both still carriers.

All of this is not quite an aside. The fact is that, as I said, 'Battleship' comes from 'Line of battle ship'. Basically a Battleship is a large surface warship specifically designed and intended for use against other surface craft - specifically other Battleships.
The problem here is that smaller ships, which as I keep saying are a heck of a lot cheaper - and of course really can be in two places at once as you can build several of them for the price of one battleship, are just as effective in this regards today.