Return of the battleship.

[iugim]

Excailbur Sabot???

I completely agree I can't see why the USN does not purse something like the 8"/55 mk 71 (now there is potential for more accurate guided rounds) , but this has got to be the heaviest shore bombardment round needed, after that you get better value out of aircraft/missiles. Lets face it there are very few land based artillery pieces over 155mm now in service with armies . The whole idea of ships like the Iowa is a joke. These ships were obsolete when they were built. Just to show how mad the whole idea is; if you were to go back to the 1930s now, with the complete benefit of hindsight, would you find anyone prepared to sacrifice even one carrier for a single battleship?

Is there a standard ratio for round to sabot? What I wonder is what size the sabot would be for the Excalibur 155MM guided round? The sabot would provide extended range like the OTO Melara Volcano round. What caliber naval gun would it take to fire a sabot version of the Excalibur?

Thanks!

 

[joeroot]

Why in the world would you use a BB to fight pirates armed with AK 47s and RPG 7s?

ok not all pirates are so low tech but if they were to take a ship and convert it which is very easy and possible then wewould need something but looking more at world war 2 we cant use battleships for ship toship fire battleships wer made for landing troops on land and providing artillery the nazi bismarkwas a prime example of that cuz it only took out the british boat taff which was their flagship but it failed to take out the sister ship another destroyer class ship and 6 planes which is really sad and a piss poor use of such a brilliant sight of firepower

 

[pith]

I really can't see bringing battle ships back as anything more than nostalgia. they're big slow targets that are costly to run.pith

 

[Thiel]

ok not all pirates are so low tech but if they were to take a ship and convert it which is very easy and possible then wewould need something but looking more at world war 2

First off, converting a merchant ship to a warship is not easy. Strapping on MGs and tank turrets is possible, but a merchantman simply doesn't have the generating capacity to run anything bigger.
Mil grade radars are completely out of the question for the same reasons, and therefore so are missiles.
And besides, were would they get all those weapons. Or the yard facilities to install them?

we cant use battleships for ship toship fire battleships wer made for landing troops on land and providing artillery

No, BBs were build for ship-to-ship combat. WWII proved that they weren't any good at it, so they were given a second chance at life as AA escorts and shore bombardment platforms.

the nazi bismarkwas a prime example of that cuz it only took out the british boat taff which was their flagship but it failed to take out the sister ship another destroyer class ship and 6 planes which is really sad and a piss poor use of such a brilliant sight of firepower

Bismarck was an anachronism before it was build, and its crew paid the price.

 

[John Sansom]

First off, converting a merchant ship to a warship is not easy. Strapping on MGs and tank turrets is possible, but a merchantman simply doesn't have the generating capacity to run anything bigger.
Mil grade radars are completely out of the question for the same reasons, and therefore so are missiles.
And besides, were would they get all those weapons. Or the yard facilities to install them?


No, BBs were build for ship-to-ship combat. WWII proved that they weren't any good at it, so they were given a second chance at life as AA escorts and shore bombardment platforms.


Bismarck was an anachronism before it was build, and its crew paid the price.

Oops! I'm nt too sure that Bismarck was such an anachronism. After all, one of her smaller "pocket" cousins, Hans Langsdorf's Graf Spee, was creating considerable chaos in the South Atlantic even befo the Bismarck went on her final run.

There's a school f thought, too, that still puzzles over Langsdorf's decision to scuttle his ship while a decent fighting breakaway chance still existed. A matter of opinion, I suppose.

And, oh yes....The Bismarck's fate was sealed by a a brave but a trifle lucky blow struck by another "anachronism", the string bag more formally known as the Fairey Swordfish.

 

[Thiel]

Oops! I'm nt too sure that Bismarck was such an anachronism. After all, one of her smaller "pocket" cousins, Hans Langsdorf's Graf Spee, was creating considerable chaos in the South Atlantic even befo the Bismarck went on her final run.

True, she was wrecking havoc on merchant shipping. A guy with a speedboat and an AK47 can do that. And look what happened to her when she met actual warships.

There's a school f thought, too, that still puzzles over Langsdorf's decision to scuttle his ship while a decent fighting breakaway chance still existed. A matter of opinion, I suppose.

That school of thought has obviously never had to deal with heavy fuel and large diesel engines. His purifiers were gone and he had less than 16 hours worth of fuel left in his day tank, and even if he decided to run dirty (Making rhe engine very prone to breakdowns) his desalinating equipment were also gone meaning that he'd be dead in the water within days-

And, oh yes....The Bismarck's fate was sealed by a a brave but a trifle lucky blow struck by another "anachronism", the string bag more formally known as the Fairey Swordfish.

Which just shows how badly outdated Bismarck was. Seriously, Bismarck would not have looked out of place at the battle of Jutland. Incremental armour, old directors, four turret layout, negligible AAA, etc etc.

 

[John Sansom]

True, she was wrecking havoc on merchant shipping. A guy with a speedboat and an AK47 can do that. And look what happened to her when she met actual warships.

That school of thought has obviously never had to deal with heavy fuel and large diesel engines. His purifiers were gone and he had less than 16 hours worth of fuel left in his day tank, and even if he decided to run dirty (Making rhe engine very prone to breakdowns) his desalinating equipment were also gone meaning that he'd be dead in the water within days-


Which just shows how badly outdated Bismarck was. Seriously, Bismarck would not have looked out of place at the battle of Jutland. Incremental armour, old directors, four turret layout, negligible AAA, etc etc.

I don't disagree, Thiel. Just musing, as it were.

Interestingly, the Bismarck's companion, the Prinz Eugen, went on from the Denmark Strait encounter with elements of the British fleet to further action, although only to end up as a target vessel for the US Navy subsequent to the war's end. But, hey.... The Prinz Eugen did, in fact, survive the war.

Of course, Britain's Prince of Wales lasted only long enough to prove that those of her class, among others, were less than adequate against determined aircraft attacks.

These somewhat dry observations should never, however, obscure the fact that the loss of these vessels also involved the loss of thousands of lives, so many of them at or only just beyond the boyhood stage.

 

[Pre-Dreadnought]

In WWII a small number of German warships kept large numbers of Royal Navy warships occupied in searching for them. In another major conflict I wonder if it would be possible for some heavily armed warship (probably not a battleship admitedly) supported by oilers to tie down large enemy forces in a similar way? The ocean is vast and another Graf Spee destroying ships across a large area seems to be to be a possibility. How would we deal with this?

 

[SASWanabe]

locate it by satelite, send in the bombers?

 

[alexsa]

Of course, Britain's Prince of Wales lasted only long enough to prove that those of her class, among others, were less than adequate against determined aircraft attacks.

These somewhat dry observations should never, however, obscure the fact that the loss of these vessels also involved the loss of thousands of lives, so many of them at or only just beyond the boyhood stage.

Actually her loss proved the value of effective shock mounting of generators as well as the need for effective air defence (be it air cover or modern missile defence) for any vessel. The generator issue was fixed in the sister ships.

 

[Volkodav]

Actually her loss proved the value of effective shock mounting of generators as well as the need for effective air defence (be it air cover or modern missile defence) for any vessel. The generator issue was fixed in the sister ships.

I have wondered how Repulse would have performed had she received the same refit / modernisation as Renown with 5 twin 4.5" on each beam. To be honest I wonder if the KGVs and Vanguard would have been better off with 10 or 12 twin 4.5" instead of 8 twin 5.25" DP.

How would Repulse and POW have done if they had been armed with 4.5" DP?

 

[JoeMcFriday]

I have wondered how Repulse would have performed had she received the same refit / modernisation as Renown with 5 twin 4.5" on each beam. To be honest I wonder if the KGVs and Vanguard would have been better off with 10 or 12 twin 4.5" instead of 8 twin 5.25" DP.
How would Repulse and POW have done if they had been armed with 4.5" DP?

One would have to agree with you that "10 or 12 twin 4.5"" should be the more effective kit for AA in the Pacific or Med. where dive and torpedo threats were more of a threat than very high level bombers.

I'm not a gunner, just a reader but I thought the ammo more than the gun wrought more positive changes in AA effectiveness and didn't the refits mentioned include better radar ranging/ammo than available to POW and Repulse?

Wouldn't the date of the introduction of proximity fuses affect any results rather than time fused barrages from either gun? I can't recall the date of the introduction, but I think it was late mid-war, 100 gun barrages couldn't consistently hit a V1, but proximity fuzes changed that quickly.

In the RAN History Vol2 42-45 [AWM] two pertinent things are mentioned.
1/ Off Guadalcanal the USN were astounded at the success achieved by the RAN using 8" main guns in anti-air barrages with radar ranging [not sure about the fuses], They thought effective AA must come from only the smaller GP or QF type guns

2/ When the RN Pacific Fleet arrived off New Guinea late in the war, RAN officers, already experienced against intense air attack, expressed serious concerns re. the inadequacy of the fleets air defences. This I think included the 'upgraded' BBs.
Fortunately for the RN, their carriers were armoured and their radar directed CAP very strong.

Even upgraded as suggested would the POW and Repulse fared better? They may have shot down a few more attackers [with barrage fire] but I think the outcome would have been the same.
Air cover may have changed the outcome, we'll never know.
Cheers,
Mac

 

[John Sansom]

Actually her loss proved the value of effective shock mounting of generators as well as the need for effective air defence (be it air cover or modern missile defence) for any vessel. The generator issue was fixed in the sister ships.

That may be, but the outcome would most likely have been the same given the time and state of the art therein.. The process to reach that end would no doubt have beeen a mite longer and somewhat bloodier for the attacking forces.
'Ave a luverly.

 

[lingcod]

Battleships

Some honest questions.
Who, and with what weapons would pose a threat to an IOWA class BB? And if so aren't our other ships in as much, or more danger? I wonder what is the purpose of a modern destroyer or cruiser. What they carry that cannot be placed aboard a battleship. They seem much more vulnerable to damage than a battleship. What protects them?
Isn't a missle essentually just a slower warhead in flight? They can be shot down, unlike guns, correct? Seems like armor is armor; whether stopping a 16'' shell or missle.
Why the concern about the crew size required for battleships? The fuel required? When has the military been concerned with conservation? We're not talking about bringing back a dozen battleships, just a couple. How about the costs of carriers, they are not cheap.
And there is the intimadating presence of a battleship that modern naval ships don't have.
They did a good job in The Gulf War, with little damage sustained.
No weapon system is perfect. Ideally there should be none.
Don't mean to start any arguments, just my casual thoughts.

 

[lingcod]

Oops! I'm nt too sure that Bismarck was such an anachronism. After all, one of her smaller "pocket" cousins, Hans Langsdorf's Graf Spee, was creating considerable chaos in the South Atlantic even befo the Bismarck went on her final run.

There's a school f thought, too, that still puzzles over Langsdorf's decision to scuttle his ship while a decent fighting breakaway chance still existed. A matter of opinion, I suppose.

And, oh yes....The Bismarck's fate was sealed by a a brave but a trifle lucky blow struck by another "anachronism", the string bag more formally known as the Fairey Swordfish.

Germany's navy had the least funds to work with. Hitler was unaware of the navy potential, and too cautious for what he did have. Europe was taken over, with only Britan left to defeat. Bismarck was a great ship, and had it been given Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, maybe Hipper, to sail with, it would have been a very different outcome. Or at least if Lutjens had taken on fuel when he was supposed to, Bismarck wouldn't have needed to slow down and conserve fuel. Almost made it passed the British ships. The Admiralty were right in worrying about the effect Bismarck might have done on convoys. She probably couldn't have been stopped much less found if she broke out.

 

[PCShogun]

How about a design like the Kirov class, but more modern. A battleship that is essentially loaded with lots and lots of guided weapons. Not armored, but instead relying on superior range, and superior support assets (maritime patrol, etc) acting as part of a naval task force. Basically a very large missile cruiser.

It has been noted in the past that multipurpose ships generally cannot survive in a single purpose environ. The Kirov, limited to VTOL aircraft is unable to win victories against much more capable Air superiority aircraft. Missiles, while effective, do not have the range of an aircraft, with refueling capability, to reach the target prior to being engaged. The launching platform is fixed to a floating deck while aircraft are not and thus will always have a longer reach.

Battleship Missouri required 2,000 men to run while a missile cruiser, able to deliver the same missile payload, required only a few hundred men. Not saying that you could not build a more modern ship requiring less man power, but again, why do it when 3 cruisers can deliver 2x the payload of missiles while dividing the potential offensive loss due to a hit by 3.

Today, ships are nearly disposable. Just like the knights in armor, weapons have progressed to the point that a ½ million dollar missile or bomb can sink a 2 billion dollar ship with one hit and no armor can withstand it. Armoring a ship top, bottom,side to side; capable of withstanding several thousand pounds of modern explosive results in a ship that will not float.

In World War II it was learned that Air power is greater than sea power. The Carrier evolved to project that air power into the seas and act as a base to bring that power to bear wherever we pleased.

The days of big steel are over. The day of cheap aluminum and throw away electronics is here.

 

[1805]

Some honest questions.
Who, and with what weapons would pose a threat to an IOWA class BB? And if so aren't our other ships in as much, or more danger? I wonder what is the purpose of a modern destroyer or cruiser. What they carry that cannot be placed aboard a battleship. They seem much more vulnerable to damage than a battleship. What protects them?
Isn't a missle essentually just a slower warhead in flight? They can be shot down, unlike guns, correct? Seems like armor is armor; whether stopping a 16'' shell or missle.
Why the concern about the crew size required for battleships? The fuel required? When has the military been concerned with conservation? We're not talking about bringing back a dozen battleships, just a couple. How about the costs of carriers, they are not cheap.
And there is the intimadating presence of a battleship that modern naval ships don't have.
They did a good job in The Gulf War, with little damage sustained.
No weapon system is perfect. Ideally there should be none.
Don't mean to start any arguments, just my casual thoughts.

If the only value of a battleship is shore bombardment then that role can be better performed and cheaper buy other routes.

The battleship as a serious weapon was redundant by the 1930s. The treaty and post treaty battleships built in 30/40s were a waste of resources which no one with the benefit of hindsight would have build as the resouces would have been better spent on more carriers/aircraft.

Just ask yourself would you have swapped one carrier for 2-3 battleships in WW2??

 

[PCShogun]

Some honest questions.
Who, and with what weapons would pose a threat to an IOWA class BB? And if so aren't our other ships in as much, or more danger? I wonder what is the purpose of a modern destroyer or cruiser. What they carry that cannot be placed aboard a battleship. They seem much more vulnerable to damage than a battleship. What protects them?
Isn't a missle essentually just a slower warhead in flight? They can be shot down, unlike guns, correct? Seems like armor is armor; whether stopping a 16'' shell or missle.
Why the concern about the crew size required for battleships? The fuel required? When has the military been concerned with conservation? We're not talking about bringing back a dozen battleships, just a couple. How about the costs of carriers, they are not cheap.
And there is the intimadating presence of a battleship that modern naval ships don't have.
They did a good job in The Gulf War, with little damage sustained.
No weapon system is perfect. Ideally there should be none.
Don't mean to start any arguments, just my casual thoughts.

The Iowa was vulnerable to just about any modern torpedo. Her keel would not be able to support her weight in the event of a torpedo attack. Modern torps do not strike the hull but rather explode underneath, forcing the water up and away from the hull, literally breaking the ship in half by its own weight due to a lack of support on the keel. The Iowa was armored for contact torpedoes at the waterline and heavy guns above the waterline. Below that, there was no armor.

Shells are better than missiles in many aspects. As you mention, intercepting a missile is easier. However, shells have a much more limited range than a missile. 20 miles versus 200 miles would be an example. I can sit back and gang launch missiles at you while never allowing you a shot back with your guns.

Battleships would be limited to action along the coast, again, due to the limits of their gun range. Missiles extend that range, but nothing near what an aircraft can do. Battleships require nearly the same manpower to operate as a carrier does while the carrier is more versatile.

 

[John Sansom]

The Iowa was vulnerable to just about any modern torpedo. Her keel would not be able to support her weight in the event of a torpedo attack. Modern torps do not strike the hull but rather explode underneath, forcing the water up and away from the hull, literally breaking the ship in half by its own weight due to a lack of support on the keel. The Iowa was armored for contact torpedoes at the waterline and heavy guns above the waterline. Below that, there was no armor.

Shells are better than missiles in many aspects. As you mention, intercepting a missile is easier. However, shells have a much more limited range than a missile. 20 miles versus 200 miles would be an example. I can sit back and gang launch missiles at you while never allowing you a shot back with your guns.

Battleships would be limited to action along the coast, again, due to the limits of their gun range. Missiles extend that range, but nothing near what an aircraft can do. Battleships require nearly the same manpower to operate as a carrier does while the carrier is more versatile.

No argument, PCShogun. Your comments on the vulnerability of WWII battleships to all sorts of modern hardware was a bit of a bell-ringer when I remembered several clips I recently saw of kamikaze attacks on troopships, supply vessels, and, of course, on battleships and their smaller armoured cousins off Okinawa

The Japanese aircraft and their pilots were missiles...and pretty effective missiles at that, even though they were, in a technical sense, far, far less sophisticated than today's systems. And God alone knows what destruction might have been wrought by today's "back-breaker" torpedoes.

Just musing....and thankful for all the information and opinions being exchanged on this thread.

 

[1805]

Actually back breaker torpedos came in at the begining of WW2, but completely agreed on the weakness of Battleships. There is a cast the Iowa's were actually battlecruisers, with weaker armour and faster speed, they certainly were not up to the Yamato's.