Battleship Porn

[Frosty]

Frosty, you just became my favorite poster.

Hi there.

 

[frostytheplebe]

Hi there.

saw that coming.

Heh, I went aboard the Lady Lex when I was at leadership school about eight years ago. The sailor in me was horrified...they put an IMAX in her up forward! Felt funny though...after doing time aboard a Nimitz, she's indeed a "small" one. Relatively speaking, of course.

You mean the fighting Lady, CV-16, the Lady Lex was CV-2... yeah I know, that whole Imax thing had me fuming! The Intrepid is pretty cool though... except for the damn blackbird taking up half the flight deck!

One really impressive sight is the USS Texas at San Jacento State Park. The ship is terrible shape and I think is sitting on the bottom of her mooring, but she's the last Dreadnought in the world.

Plus you come out here, we have other ships to see as well:
USS Casin Young, USS Constitution, USS Salem (If you want to waste your time), USS Forrestal, Battleship Cove(USS Massachusetts, USS Joseph Kennedy, USS Lionfish, two PT boats, and a russian vette.)

 

[Tigerhawk]

saw that coming.

Ah...evidently I need to reference "FTP" from here on out...

You mean the fighting Lady, CV-16, the Lady Lex was CV-2... yeah I know, that whole Imax thing had me fuming! The Intrepid is pretty cool though... except for the damn blackbird taking up half the flight deck!

One really impressive sight is the USS Texas at San Jacento State Park. The ship is terrible shape and I think is sitting on the bottom of her mooring, but she's the last Dreadnought in the world.

Plus you come out here, we have other ships to see as well:
USS Casin Young, USS Constitution, USS Salem (If you want to waste your time), USS Forrestal, Battleship Cove(USS Massachusetts, USS Joseph Kennedy, USS Lionfish, two PT boats, and a russian vette.)

Ahhh, I may have to do that as well. Iiiinteresting...thanks!

 

[Bandit LOAF]

I rather think that no member of either the House or the Senate (save, perhaps, for John McCain) should *ever* be privvy to that honor.

Giving big carriers (Vinson and Stennis) to career legislators seems unfortunate... but ruling against it doesn't work, either, since plenty of great heroes have also served in Congress (there was a USS Sam Houston... half the ships named after Presidents are also named after Congressmen... and we've got to be about a heartbeat away from naming a support ship John Glenn...).

 

[Jebe]

I did know what NGFS stands for. We do just fine without blowing people up in 16 inch turrets.

So you know better then the people that kept the BBs on register to provide NGFS or be available to be able to provide NGFS in just about every major conflict since WW2? Seriously, don't go on about Tomahawks, pretend the NGFS mission doesn't exist and tell me you know what it is about.

The 5/54's have not been ruled to meet NGFS requirements, which is a large part of the reason for the Zumwalt-class. The Zumwalt ironically being in the same tonnage range as the HMS Dreadnought of ~15kT.

You're forgetting that the dreadnought is simply an extension of the centuries old 'ship of the line.'
...
One argument I will clearly make is that there is no way a Dreadnought era vessel is inferior to a pre-dreadnought battleship in any way, shape, or form. Dreadnoughts were faster, more heavily armored, and far more lethal in battle due to their standard armaments. Half of the guns in pre-dreadnought designs were useless if the sea was the slightest bit rough.

You're forgetting that Naval Historians pretty much consider the period between Trafalgar (Wooden Sailing Ships) and Tsushima to be empty, because there's really nothing decisive between ships of comparable vintage. So given I'm including Tsushima, are you seriously going to refer to Trafalagar with sail powered wooden ships where Nelson effectively established maneuverability>guns to try to support Dreadnoughts? That seems utterly at odds with your premise.

You also willfully ignore that if you can't protect your trade, your Navy is a failure. The #1 Naval Power had to go to the #2 Naval power to prevent itself from being strangled to death against a Naval power whose entire surface fleet has been neutralized, something is wrong with nuking on surface ships.

These ships were absolutely essential to any navy projecting power.
...
Would a line of destroyers or 'destroyer leaders' (Japanese) have the same impact on foreign policy, for example?

You do realize the USN doesn't operate any true cruisers anymore? The Ticos were called that to help with appropriation politics. Showing the Flag, doesn't exactly require parking your best ship in someone else's port either.

Do you also realize Kurita and MacArthur amoung many others had their Flag on cruisers, even when BBs were available?

Bottom line though is projecting power is about kicking the other guy's butt on his territory. After the High Sea Fleet was more or less forced into dry dock following Jutland, a certain fleet never kicked in the door, so when is it they projected power?

Even if we take the whole troop transport aspect out of that I'm not seeing it. The noteworthy NGFS missions I recall with the D-Day assault were done by Destroyers.

- but there certainly were near misses. What if the Japanese had continued with their big guns towards Rear Admiral Sprague's force in the Battle of Samar?
...
As it was, they caused considerable damage before being 'fooled' into retreating.

Fooled? Other then their delusions despite land based air's reports, what could you possibly be referring to?

Besides if Kurita had continued he would have been mauled by the swarm of DDs and DEs assigned to protecting the landing ships which by that point had largely vacated the area. Unless you just hold that much of a grudge against the USNR and the CVEs that could never have outrun Center Force for kicking the crap out of one of the largest concentrations of naval gun power in history, what's your point?

Japanese fire control suckage was just a freak fluke? If they had only had the best FC of the war, aka the Americans, they would have managed to get them dag gone evil tin cans? What is your grudge with the valiant sailors of Taffy 3?

That being said, they certainly remained priority targets throughout the war because of their recognized and understood potential to devestate the enemy.

I do not recall implying they were unarmed ocean liners that happen to be utterly inadequate for military operations, do you?

Look how many torps were required to actually sink the Bismarck, for example - and that's after she was set ablaze by hundreds of rounds of ammunition.

RL is not a videogame, damage is a little for complex then X # of rounds. If the magazine doesn't get set off punching new air holes does not intrinsically do anything to sink a ship. Opening holes that let water in do.

There are WW1 engagements where various ships in gun duels literally shot the other to bits, and the losing one gave up because it ran out of ammo. Not to mention the ships being so not in danger of sinking the crews intentionally scuttled their ships after surrendering.

Besides which, other then jamming the rudder, as far as I recall of what I've seen of the Bismarck incident indicate she was shot to bits by the entire British Fleet basically ganging up on her.

To the question of vulnerability to air attack, that is a legitimate concern. However, I would point out that not all battleships were equal here, either. American battleships of the Second World War tended to have formidable anti aircraft armament. They frequently downed aircraft headed for the carriers (or themselves) they were assigned to protect. In the above example, imagine a South Dakota or North Carolina class battleship in the same situation. I don't think the Swordfish would have been as successful in penetrating that kind of firepower.

You're going to bring up the Navy with the best AA of the war, in reference to the ship that had its rudder taken out and was basically shot to bits by the entire British Fleet ganging up on it. Are you not giving the British that much credit, or Bismarck's skipper that much credit to actually manage to have slipped away?

Nevermind secondary armaments are in addition to the Dreadnought core, and in contradiction to the original Dreadnought concept. So playing those up is an entertaining choice after going on about what a good idea the all big gun armament was.

You mention the battle of Jutland; what we see there is similar to what we see on land in the First World War.

Germany did just about everything theoretically possible wrong, including serving their fleet to the British on a Silver Platter by giving them a perfect crossing of the T. Yet the British lost more ships even if they damaged the High Sea Fleet enough for it to be removed from the table. The trench problem had a lot to do with logistics being inadequate past the rail heads for the number of troops deployed. There's absolutely zero parallel, from where I'm standing.

Especially as none of it acknowledges the reality the SSKs bringing Britain to its knees to the point it would have had to by Britain's own acknowledgment surrender if the #2 Naval power had not pulled them out of it. The High Sea Fleet was driven from the seas to drydock following Jutland. It was a strategic defeat, which under the surface action perspective you're nuking on should have lost Germany the War. Instead Britain was brought to its knees, because it drove Germany to get serious with the SSK which Britain was unable to counter. That's the historic truth and no amount of handwaving changes the reality it backfired on the British epically.

 

[ELTEE]

So you know better then the people that kept the BBs on register to provide NGFS or be available to be able to provide NGFS in just about every major conflict since WW2? Seriously, don't go on about Tomahawks, pretend the NGFS mission doesn't exist and tell me you know what it is about.

OK - time to be honest with yourself. Find a mirror, look into it, and try and tell yourself with a straight face that the reason we keep the Iowas on reserve is because without their 16 inch guns we would have been unable to support our forces from the sea. Desert Storm would have been a failure. If you can pull it off, I salute you.

You can't possibly think that maintaining an Iowa or two is really in the best interest of the fleet. In fact, the Navy is actually pushing to get rid of them once and for all. The only reason these vessels remain on the register is because of our emotional attachment to them as a nation. They signify much to many and, as such, are difficult to put to rest.

Now, what's interesting about this is that if you had read my posts you would realize I'm actually a supporter of these mighty vessels. I don't see what your issue with me really is, actually.

Furthermore, the whole idea of NGFS as a necessity is becoming increasingly obsolete. We have so many units capable of covering down on any given mission; the reality is we no longer need such guns in the arsenal, or really any guns at all.

You're forgetting that Naval Historians pretty much consider the period between Trafalgar (Wooden Sailing Ships) and Tsushima to be empty, because there's really nothing decisive between ships of comparable vintage. So given I'm including Tsushima, are you seriously going to refer to Trafalagar with sail powered wooden ships where Nelson effectively established maneuverability>guns to try to support Dreadnoughts? That seems utterly at odds with your premise.

Of course it seems at odds with my premise - since this isn't the argument I was making at all. You're forgetting that we're not talking about that. Since you bring up Trafalgar, however, let's analyze the engagement.

The primary reason that Nelson's fleet prevailed was command and control, not maneuverability or guns. Sorry, nothing fancy- C2 won the day hands down. Nelson dealt with one language, one team, one fight. The enemy dealt with multiple languages, multiple ideas on how to engage the enemy, no clear plan AND with questionable training thrown in for good measure. Let's try and stay on topic here and stick to the basics, just so we don't go hurting ourselves, shall we?

You also willfully ignore...

Again with the strong language, as if I'm following some conspiracy theory here to overinflate the dreadnought with the sole purpose of frustrating you.

Yet again, you failed to answer my original argument which remains supreme (and which I bet I'll bring up again in this very post); if the British had not built any dreadnoughts, but the Germans had, who woud have had the power? The SSK was not proven yet, nor the airplane, as Frostytheplebe correctly pointed out. As such, the weapon of choice was the dreadnought. Not the pre-dreadnought. Not the sailing ship of the line or man o war. The dreadnought. Everyone had to have one - if you didn't, you weren't cool and couldn't wield influence over your buddies. Argument over.

You do realize the USN doesn't operate any true cruisers anymore?

Really? That's funny, because I could have sworn that the Ticonderoga class was classified as a cruiser. I could be wrong though - maybe they're FAKE cruisers. They're really corvettes. Better go check.

Except they're cruisers in mission, size, capability, and role. The Russians tried that with the Kuznetsov, but everyone knows what it is.

These classifications change all the time. Please don't try and argue that parking a 'tico' off the coast of an adversary would have the same effect as parking a Nimitz - because that's exactly the difference we're talking about leading up to WWI when you compare a lowly cruiser to a battleship. During wartime conditions, an admiral will place his flag on whichever vessel serves as the best C2 unit available. There are just as many examples of admirals choosing carriers or battleships as those choosing cruisers. Halsey? New Jersey. Where did Kurita swim to when his cruiser sank? Yamato.

...so when is it they projected power?

I think you're missing the concept of power projection. Unfortunately, things are not always black and white. It's easy to say that it's all about sinking the enemy, but the reality of the early 20th century was that is was as much about making a statement and impressing allies/intimidating enemies as it was about being effective in combat. No U-boat or destroyer was going to raise an eyebrow.

Battleships projected power anytime they visited a port or put to sea. They projected power to their own citizens and to the citizens of their allies. They completely changed the balance of power in the days leading up to WWI, after WWI, and leading up to WWII. Nations risked bankruptcy to build them and designers strived to be selected to pen them. They had their fair chances to alter the outcome of WWII as well - it wasn't all carrier or sub combat.

Really, I think that I should be asking you - what do you have against battleships?

Since you mention the strategic defeat (yet tactical victory) of the High Seas Fleet, let me ask you this - why didn't they put to sea in force again? Is it really because they couldn't? They replaced their losses almost instantaneously.

Fooled? Other then their delusions despite land based air's reports, what could you possibly be referring to?

Oh, I don't know. Just the decision to withdraw.

Besides if Kurita had continued he would have been mauled by the swarm of DDs and DEs assigned to protecting the landing ships which by that point had largely vacated the area. Unless you just hold that much of a grudge against the USNR and the CVEs that could never have outrun Center Force for kicking the crap out of one of the largest concentrations of naval gun power in history, what's your point?

No, no, and again, no. You're simply making assumptions. I am quite patriotic, actually, being an active member in our armed forces. I have immense respect for the members of our navy, past and present. I have a feeling you're simply making these accusations to either troll or serve some other purpose. I have nothing against the USNR - but it's naive to think that it was a certainty that this force could have repelled the heavy guns. Blind patriotism is as dangerous as unrestrained cynicism.

Japanese fire control suckage was just a freak fluke?

Interesting. Then I guess our cruisers and destroyers all sank from friendly fire at Savo Island. Japanese FC was actually quite good and was superiour to ours at the beginning of the conflict. The gamechanger? Superior American radar that continued to improve.

I do not recall implying they were unarmed ocean liners that happen to be utterly inadequate for military operations, do you?

Stop being an idiot.

Besides which, other then jamming the rudder, as far as I recall of what I've seen of the Bismarck incident indicate she was shot to bits by the entire British Fleet basically ganging up on her.

This is precisely what I said to begin with...except that in the end they fired torpedos.

You're going to bring up the Navy with the best AA of the war, in reference to the ship that had its rudder taken out and was basically shot to bits by the entire British Fleet ganging up on it. Are you not giving the British that much credit, or Bismarck's skipper that much credit to actually manage to have slipped away?

What? I'm simply saying that there was a huge discrepancy in AA armament between BBs in American service and those in foreign service. Look at the differences, for example, in Richelieu's armament after she undergoes a refit in the US.

So, yeah, if the Bismark employed AA armament remotely similar to an Iowa or even a damned Brooklyn, those Swordfishes which were admittedly already obsolete never would have made it through. As it was, the rudder hit was a lucky shot.

Nevermind secondary armaments are in addition to the Dreadnought core...

This is rediculous, and you know it. AA armement can hardly be thought of as 'competing' with big gun artillery. You know exactly what the difference between a dreadnought and a pre-dreadnought is - it has nothing to do with the caliber of AA armement.

The trench problem had a lot to do with logistics being inadequate past the rail heads for the number of troops deployed. There's absolutely zero parallel, from where I'm standing.

Then you're obviously not standing. Neither side could maneuver to a real advantage because technology was stagnant on both land and sea - what else is there to explain? Logistics wouldn't have made a difference. You weren't getting past machine guns with waves of troops, and you weren't blasting through armored fleets with the ordnance to armor ratio of the day.

It was a strategic defeat, which under the surface action perspective you're nuking on should have lost Germany the War. Instead Britain was brought to its knees, because it drove Germany to get serious with the SSK which Britain was unable to counter. That's the historic truth and no amount of handwaving changes the reality it backfired on the British epically.

And interestingly enough, Germany lost the war... and SURPRISE! Everyone built battleships and battlecruisers again. Who focused primarily on submarines? Germany. Who lost again? Germany.

This was an early example of asymetrical warfare. It doesn't mean the dreadnought was irrelevant. No single weapon can defeat every other arrayed against it. Battleships, battlecruisers, dreadnoughts, whatever - were never intended to combat submarines. Germany decided it couldn't challenge Britain's fleet in WWI and was essentially forced into repeating their tactics in WWII as they couldn't directly challenge the 'mighty British navy' on the surface due to treaty limitations. So, they tried to shoot down merchant ships from beneath the waves.

Sounds like the battleships doing their jobs, to me.

Again, imagine if Britain hadn't built a powerful surface fleet. They would have been brought to their knees before anyone else could even decide to 'rescue' them. Even if another nation did, they would have been eliminated as well, as no one else could have rivaled either fleet for supremacy of the sea at that time. Those pre-dreadnoughts you love? Smoked.

And don't tell me SSK's would have decided THAT engagment. At that point, their range and tactics were not yet evolved enough to have an impact on blue water ops between continents.

In the end, I have to take a step back and ask why you decided to get so personal about this entire thing anyway. All you had to do was say you hate battleships, and we all could have moved on!

For the record, please note that this thread is now labeled 'battleship porn.'


@ Frostytheplebe - You're right about battlecruisers! I think my argument kind of evolved as I went along, and we really ended up agreeing on the same issue. Strange when that happens!

Also, kudos to you for finding all of these great ships. I'm embarrassed that I'm so close to Newport, yet had no idea those two carriers were docked there!

As far as the last dreadnought, I thought (and I could totally be wrong here) that all BBs and battlecruisers after HMS Dreadnought were technically considered dreadnoughts.... thus, Iowa and friends would also qualify, right?

And Connecticut is one impressive ship!

@ BanditLOAF - I understand your point concerning ship names. Nevertheless, I do wish we would excersize some more common sense from time to time in how we select them!

@ Tigerhawk - none of that was boring - bring it on!

My votes? Most beautiful non-CV might just be the Scharnhorst class - but the Vittorio Veneto class is pretty close. Yeah, I'm a sucker for the big beautiful capital ships.

Most intimidating? My initial inclination is definitely the Iowas... but I do come back to the Bismark and the Tirpitz and think about the amount of fear they instilled back in the day. Definitely a toss up...

 

[Quarto]

OK - time to be honest with yourself. Find a mirror, look into it, and try and tell yourself with a straight face that the reason we keep the Iowas on reserve is because without their 16 inch guns we would have been unable to support our forces from the sea. Desert Storm would have been a failure. If you can pull it off, I salute you.

Ok, I'm game - I'll provide the argument here.

In all likelihood, the USN is quite correct - these ships just aren't needed any more. It would be better to make use of the current quiet situation and quickly replace them with a new class... of battleships. With more armour and even bigger guns.

What? More guns? Bigger guns? How ridiculous! The Navy certainly didn't need them during the Gulf War, why would they ever need them again?

Well, the thing to keep in mind here is that the Navy needs to be prepared for various challenges, including ones that aren't necessarily very probable, but certainly are significant. You're right, 16-inch guns weren't needed during the Gulf War landings (though the battleships themselves were used - that's already something to think about). They would have, on the other hand, been indispensable in a re-run of the Normandy landings. The battleship is not a vessel designed to intimidate third world countries - you've got cruisers and carriers for that. As a weapon of support against an equal power - that's a different story. A war with China might not be just around the corner. It might very well never happen (especially with the US currently doing everything to ruin itself financially, as if to ensure that China can defeat America without firing a shot)... but if it did, it may eventually be necessary for American troops to make a major landing - on Taiwan, for example - or to prevent a Chinese landing in some place like Guam or Hawaii. In that situation, it's a whole different ball game. Tomahawks are cute, but I doubt they'd have a significant impact even on the German fortifications in Normandy (circa 1944), and they wouldn't even scratch a modern system of fortifications. They've proven admirably useful against chemical factories in Sudan or tent cities in Afghanistan - but that's not exactly what it's all about. In a real war against an equal power, the USN would most definitely need a weapon that can be used non-stop to simply pummel the enemy into submission. Neither aircraft, nor Tomahawks, provide that kind of hitting power - you'd probably have to use a carrier's entire air group in a single strike to even rival the damage dealt within an hour's bombardment by a single battleship. And the costs of lobbing a few hundred shells into the air are incomparably lower than the costs of keeping all those planes flying, and producing their smart munitions. Of course, you do have nuclear weapons - but unlike gun shells, nuclear weapons cannot be used in some areas. You couldn't very well drop a nuke "defensively" on the coast of Hawaii, or to support your own troops landing in Taiwan.

The need for battleships is insignificant right now. It may be they will never, ever be needed. But don't make the mistake of assuming they're obsolete - they're not, for much the same reason that every army in the world still invests heavily in classic shell-firing artillery. It's only the current global situation that results in the USN having no need for such armament. Given a limited budget, the USN is of course right to lobby for their retirement - they don't even have the money to properly prepare for today's challenges, let alone maintain an expensive weapon that might one day maybe be useful (and which, all things considered, is probably worn out - some British WWI-era battleships had to go into drydock during WWII after firing just one salvo from their main guns, so it would be interesting how the Iowas would hold up today). But again - this is a result of politics, not of technological obsolescence.

(in fact, the Iowas are probably more intimidating today than ever before - with the shift from blunt firepower to precision munitions, there are very, very few forces in the world today capable of inflicting significant damage on a battleship)

 

[Sylvester]

As far as the last dreadnought, I thought (and I could totally be wrong here) that all BBs and battlecruisers after HMS Dreadnought were technically considered dreadnoughts.... thus, Iowa and friends would also qualify, right?

I think he may be referring to the last remaining World War I era battleship - the last so called "Super Dreadnought" which represented the battleship classes commissioned immediately proceeding and up through World War I (1913-1919). She's certainly the oldest true battleship left in the world. USS Olympia, while heavy at the time during the Spanish American War, can't really be considered a battleship.

And Kudos to everyone reminding me how stupid that sentence of mine sounds now. If I may ask, can an admin please edit that part of my post and get rid of that reference?

 

[Quarto]

Oh, and about that dreadnought thing. It's easy to forget (especially when you're a sci-fi fan and you spend your time discussing the exploits of ships like the TCS Concordia and the like) that in the real world, the objective is usually to win with as little bloodshed as possible. If you can force your enemy not to fight against you at all - well, some of the greatest military victories of the British Empire occured in quiet cabinet meetings when this or that military power decided they just can't fight the British. People talk about how horrendously expensive dreadnoughts were, and about how they brought the British Empire to its knees - wrong. Dreadnoughts were dirt-cheap. Building a dreadnought is a huge cost, just like building a modern nuclear aircraft carrier. But it fades into utter, complete insignificance when you compare it to the costs of maintaining a few combat divisions on a battlefield in France for four years. What brought the British Empire down wasn't the building of dreadnoughts - it was the fact that they just plain didn't have enough of them, and Germany decided that they can risk it. It was the debts incurred during WWI that ruined the British Empire - not by building more dreadnoughts, but by sending of hundreds of thousands of man to fight a war in France.

Another thing to consider is that even in wartime, one of the reasons to have a powerful battleship is to avoid fighting. The Germans did this for years - simply by keeping the Tirpitz in Norway, they forced the British to keep half their fleet in Scotland. This fleet should have been away in the Pacific, defending India and Australia - instead, it was stuck in Scapa Flow, just in case the Tirpitz were to leave port. The same thing had been the case in WWI - the German navy won a huge, overwhelming victory not by fighting the British, but by forcing them to stay put. At a time when British fleet should have been busy destroying the tiny, but dangerous Austro-Hungarian fleet or bombarding Turkish defences in the Dardanelles, all their most powerful battleships were stuck in the North Sea.

(...and at the same time, the Germans were unable to use their own battleships to provide artillery support for their troops in France, because the British fleet was there to intercept them...)

And Kudos to everyone reminding me how stupid that sentence of mine sounds now. If I may ask, can an admin please edit that part of my post and get rid of that reference?

Heh, nope - you gotta live with it .

 

[Death]

Speaking solely on the name issue, odds are somewhat less than favorable, to put it mildly, for it to change.

When Admiral Rickover (father of the nuclear navy, and for the longest time God Above Gods™ as far as the submarine force was concerned) was asked why the naming scheme for SSNs was changed from fish and other sealife to cities, with the Los Angeles class, he replied "fish don't vote". Same reasoning applies in other situations.

Since the military obviously relies on those in Congress and the White House to be able to pay for their equipment, it's almost guaranteed that unless the country changes radically, the Navy using new ship names to honoring those who've been good to the service (as was the case with Stennis) will continue for the foreseeable future.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

When Admiral Rickover (father of the nuclear navy, and for the longest time God Above Gods™ as far as the submarine force was concerned) was asked why the naming scheme for SSNs was changed from fish and other sealife to cities, with the Los Angeles class, he replied "fish don't vote".

Sounds like Admiral Rickover never met any of those Chicago pet store fish.

 

[ELTEE]

Ok, I'm game - I'll provide the argument here.

Heh, fantastic! In all honesty, I love the idea of keeping the Iowas in service. I am hopelessly in love with the idea of these ships continuing to represent our navy.

I wasn't trying to suggest that the role for which they were developed is obsolete. I meant, really, that the Iowas themselves are difficult to maintain due to the extreme costs required to operate them. We don't need bigger or better guns - just more economical ones! If a case could be made for reducing their crew requirements and increasing their efficiency, show me the dotted line and I'll be the first to sign.

Your argument concerning why countries built BBs is quite correct, and an angle that I was hinting at but really forgot to center on. It was more than just national pride, prestige, and the goal to influence others that spurned the construction of these ships...

Also, you are absolutely spot on concerning China as well. One of my greatest fears is that we have become too nearsighted regarding current combat operations and will fail to see the important events that are sure to be on the horizon.

In any future naval combat operation with China, the idea of a BB style battlegroup is actually a good one for several reasons. Having essentially a massive missile and gun ship is a great way to divert attention from CVBGs and provide an alternate method for striking at an adversary's navy. Equipped with the right weapons, BBs (though who knows if we will ever actually use the term BB again) would certainly have the opportunity to contribute to this kind of engagement for more than just amphibious landing support.

 

[Tigerhawk]

Ok, I'm game - I'll provide the argument here.

In all likelihood, the USN is quite correct - these ships just aren't needed any more. It would be better to make use of the current quiet situation and quickly replace them with a new class... of battleships. With more armour and even bigger guns.

What? More guns? Bigger guns? How ridiculous! The Navy certainly didn't need them during the Gulf War, why would they ever need them again?

Well, the thing to keep in mind here is that the Navy needs to be prepared for various challenges, including ones that aren't necessarily very probable, but certainly are significant. You're right, 16-inch guns weren't needed during the Gulf War landings (though the battleships themselves were used - that's already something to think about). They would have, on the other hand, been indispensable in a re-run of the Normandy landings. The battleship is not a vessel designed to intimidate third world countries - you've got cruisers and carriers for that. As a weapon of support against an equal power - that's a different story. A war with China might not be just around the corner. It might very well never happen (especially with the US currently doing everything to ruin itself financially, as if to ensure that China can defeat America without firing a shot)... but if it did, it may eventually be necessary for American troops to make a major landing - on Taiwan, for example - or to prevent a Chinese landing in some place like Guam or Hawaii. In that situation, it's a whole different ball game. Tomahawks are cute, but I doubt they'd have a significant impact even on the German fortifications in Normandy (circa 1944), and they wouldn't even scratch a modern system of fortifications. They've proven admirably useful against chemical factories in Sudan or tent cities in Afghanistan - but that's not exactly what it's all about. In a real war against an equal power, the USN would most definitely need a weapon that can be used non-stop to simply pummel the enemy into submission. Neither aircraft, nor Tomahawks, provide that kind of hitting power - you'd probably have to use a carrier's entire air group in a single strike to even rival the damage dealt within an hour's bombardment by a single battleship. And the costs of lobbing a few hundred shells into the air are incomparably lower than the costs of keeping all those planes flying, and producing their smart munitions. Of course, you do have nuclear weapons - but unlike gun shells, nuclear weapons cannot be used in some areas. You couldn't very well drop a nuke "defensively" on the coast of Hawaii, or to support your own troops landing in Taiwan.

The need for battleships is insignificant right now. It may be they will never, ever be needed. But don't make the mistake of assuming they're obsolete - they're not, for much the same reason that every army in the world still invests heavily in classic shell-firing artillery. It's only the current global situation that results in the USN having no need for such armament. Given a limited budget, the USN is of course right to lobby for their retirement - they don't even have the money to properly prepare for today's challenges, let alone maintain an expensive weapon that might one day maybe be useful (and which, all things considered, is probably worn out - some British WWI-era battleships had to go into drydock during WWII after firing just one salvo from their main guns, so it would be interesting how the Iowas would hold up today). But again - this is a result of politics, not of technological obsolescence.

(in fact, the Iowas are probably more intimidating today than ever before - with the shift from blunt firepower to precision munitions, there are very, very few forces in the world today capable of inflicting significant damage on a battleship)

Quarto, I believe your idea has quite a bit of merit.

And not simply because I'm an Iowa whore.

Look at what happened in the skies over Vietnam when guns were taken off U.S. aircraft in favor of missiles...missiles are the wave of the future and guns obsolete, right?

Wrong.

Now we have a bunch of missile-armed ships with the only operational guns being either the 5-inchers or the CWIS for shooting down inbound antiship missiles or turning speedboats into driftwood. Good for modern thought, but...

...what about the guns?

Say you've got an op going on off the coast of China (or whatever country it might be) that has at least a decent conventional military. While not the most easy thing to do, a Tomahawk can be seen and does have the chance of being shot down as it's easy to see and flies in a (mostly) straight line. Kinda hard to shoot down a 16-inch shell screaming at you through an arc, though.

Plus, okay, Tomahawks, which excellent warhead platforms, just likely wouldn't carry the same fear factor as a shell whistling down on you and sending a shock wave out. Plus you know a Tomahawk likely would only be sent once against a certain target. Can you say the same thing with the FireForEffect method? I'm doubting it.

I think that's a good point...guns shouldn't ever be counted out.

And besides, with the advances of technology today, how could an improvement in crew size not be achieved? Hmmm...wonder if a nuke plant could be installed to replace the boilers...?

 

[Tigerhawk]

Heh, fantastic! In all honesty, I love the idea of keeping the Iowas in service. I am hopelessly in love with the idea of these ships continuing to represent our navy.

I wasn't trying to suggest that the role for which they were developed is obsolete. I meant, really, that the Iowas themselves are difficult to maintain due to the extreme costs required to operate them. We don't need bigger or better guns - just more economical ones! If a case could be made for reducing their crew requirements and increasing their efficiency, show me the dotted line and I'll be the first to sign.

Your argument concerning why countries built BBs is quite correct, and an angle that I was hinting at but really forgot to center on. It was more than just national pride, prestige, and the goal to influence others that spurned the construction of these ships...

Also, you are absolutely spot on concerning China as well. One of my greatest fears is that we have become too nearsighted regarding current combat operations and will fail to see the important events that are sure to be on the horizon.

In any future naval combat operation with China, the idea of a BB style battlegroup is actually a good one for several reasons. Having essentially a massive missile and gun ship is a great way to divert attention from CVBGs and provide an alternate method for striking at an adversary's navy. Equipped with the right weapons, BBs (though who knows if we will ever actually use the term BB again) would certainly have the opportunity to contribute to this kind of engagement for more than just amphibious landing support.

See, this is what you get when you're away from keeping current on general military news for seven years...I had no idea that the Iowas were still on the rolls, even as they're being turned into/already are museum ships.

And the BB battlegroup is already in the books, at least...it's called a SAG (Surface Action Group), the idea of which has a one-star admiral (at least) commanding a group of surface ships from the Admiral's Bridge of said Iowa class. For an idea of this in word form, check out/reread Tom Clancy's "Hunt For Red October".

 

[Quarto]

See, this is what you get when you're away from keeping current on general military news for seven years...I had no idea that the Iowas were still on the rolls, even as they're being turned into/already are museum ships.

Actually, I checked that up yesterday, as a result of this thread - they're not on the roll any more. As of 2006, all of them have been finally and permanently retired.

 

[frostytheplebe]

Actually, I checked that up yesterday, as a result of this thread - they're not on the roll any more. As of 2006, all of them have been finally and permanently retired.

Have they been stripped of any of their equipment? After doing volunteer work at Battleship cove I can tell ya, when a ship is retired and turned into a museum, most of the working equipment is stripped off the ship and it is left a wreck on the inside which is then restored by the museum.

 

[Tigerhawk]

Have they been stripped of any of their equipment? After doing volunteer work at Battleship cove I can tell ya, when a ship is retired and turned into a museum, most of the working equipment is stripped off the ship and it is left a wreck on the inside which is then restored by the museum.

Not sure about the actualities of it, but Iowa is currently undergoing museum-ities in San Francisco. About two months ago, there was a hiring call for Iowans to go out there to restore her and, once opened up for museum status, anyone with an Iowa driver's license gets aboard free. I'm there once that happens.

It would seem that'd happen, as I have a hard time believing a lot of moving parts (especially for 16 inchers) would be kept anywhere near operational condition. Doesn't mean that's what's happening, though.

 

[frostytheplebe]

Not sure about the actualities of it, but Iowa is currently undergoing museum-ities in San Francisco. About two months ago, there was a hiring call for Iowans to go out there to restore her and, once opened up for museum status, anyone with an Iowa driver's license gets aboard free. I'm there once that happens.

It would seem that'd happen, as I have a hard time believing a lot of moving parts (especially for 16 inchers) would be kept anywhere near operational condition. Doesn't mean that's what's happening, though.

Well they don't COMPLETELY gut the ship. I mean a lot of the mechanics are left intact, but they render everything inoperable. Example: All the working computers are removed and replaced with fakes to give the appearance of functionality without actually violating national security.

 

[Dundradal]

Have they been stripped of any of their equipment? After doing volunteer work at Battleship cove I can tell ya, when a ship is retired and turned into a museum, most of the working equipment is stripped off the ship and it is left a wreck on the inside which is then restored by the museum.

You volunteered on the Big Mammie? I was thinking about doing that soon...once I get my employment stuff all straightened out and I know my fall schedule.

 

[frostytheplebe]

You volunteered on the Big Mammie? I was thinking about doing that soon...once I get my employment stuff all straightened out and I know my fall schedule.

Its worth it. You get access to the areas they don't let normal people touch. I've been up to the bridge on the Mammie... now I wish I hadn't though, it was in terrible shape. Plus they let me in for free to film a cruiser documentary for a film class to took to fulfill annoying core req.

But you're down in RI right? You know they're looking for people to help restore the Saratoga and the Russian sub they're planning to make into a museum.