Just one note - when Graf Spee met the three ships at Rio de la Plata, she mission-killed their heavy cruiser Exeter (to the point that she needed a full year in the yard afterwards) and damaged both light cruisers. Considering the three ships she faced together brought in twice her displacement that's not really all that bad a performance.
Return of the battleship.
- Thread starter Tankcrewman2008
- Start date
-
- Tags
- battleship cannon guns ship weapons
- Status
John Sansom
New Member
Point well taken, 1805. But I was thinking rather more of the currrent crop of back-breakers and their efficacy. This, of course, begs the question of just where Japaness torpedo technology stood at the time of the Okinawa invasion.....and, for that matter, what chance would there have been of one or more Japanese subs penetrating the screen surrounding the invasion fleet?
At any rate, thanks for adding to my meagre library of developing:lam knowledge.
That's true and if a Jap sub had got through the screening escorts it wouldn't have wasted its torpedos on an Iowa if there was a carrier to fire them at.
Aren't they firing torpedos, and launching missles at the carriers as well? Wouldn't the carriers be in just as much danger, also too?
John Sansom
New Member
The simple answer to Lingcod's question is....yes. Providing a sub can position itself well and has managed to avoid the relatively intense activity of accompanying screening vessels, including rotary wing aircraft engaged in dropping sonar buoys and "dipping" for contacts, carriers would be/are very much desired targets.
As for missiles....Well, whatever their platform of origin and the significant defence systems which can be brought to bear against them, these weapons are always a threat which cannot be treated casually.
Having casually come forth with some generalities (all subject to correction and/or modification), I can't help but think of the 1914 sinking of "HMS Audacious" just north of Ireland in 1914. This British super dreadnought struck a mine somewhat recently laid as part of a field by the converted German liner " Berlin". It took her a while, but she eventually went down with no lives lost (as she was on fleet exercises at the time). Efforts to rescue her resulted in three broken towlines and, oddly enough, lots of photographs by the passengers of the British liner "Olympia" which happened to be passing by.
The point is, all the topside armour in which "Audacious" was clad helped not at all.
It was a mine which tore a hole in her un-armoured under-belly and her massive and plentiful guns never got a chance to show their worth.
Audacious' loss was partailly down to poor damage control and yes torpedo defence significantly improved in the treaty and WW2 designs. However if you look at probably the strongest battleship actually built and comparable with the Montana design; the Yamato took very heavy punishment c21 x 1,000lb bombs and dozens of torpedos. No battleship could withstand a carrier attack.
Lets face it warships are not solely about being able to survive they are about inflicting damage on the other side, how can a battleship damage a carrier (ignoring incompetence like the sinking of HMS Glorious)?
True, but with the ever increasing range, power and intelligence of missiles and the increasingly better more powerful anti-air defenses there could soon be a return of the battleship. Not like it was before no. But i think the idea of the impossibility of the carrier being reduced in power is as much fault as the idea of the dominance of the battleship forever.
Technology evolves so do our tectics and weapons. Who knows what the dominant ship might be in the next hundred years it might not even be in the oceans.
Yes I agree with you about a future heavy ship maybe a cruiser/Kirov type ship or more likely a 15,000t cruiser. I'm not sure we are there yet or that they would ever fully replace the need for aircraft?
I am not sure about armour on a ship now but there is probably a case for ships to be built tougher (but the cost is already crippling most navies)
John Sansom
New Member
Have to agree with you on the "Audacious" business, 1805. Her captain's apparent delay in acknowledging tthat the "thump" felt on the bridge was the harbinger of a serious problem and, apparently, an undogged 'tweendecks hatch were components of the :"partially" picture you cite.
Somewhat interestingly, the haphazard stowing of gun cotton exposed to plunging enemy fire through unarmoured decks were to contribute to further disasters for the British navy during WWI. I mention these because they seem to indicate a certain blindness at the time to the safe handling of HE (in action or otherwise) and a rather odd indifference to design-for-survival-and-action.
The gun powder stowage problem was understandable given the desire to do anything to increase rates of fire, but is there a record of anybody at all thinking of the potential for complete disaster? As for unarmoured--or indifferently armoured--open decks, was this the result of stupidity (sorry, chaps) or a pressing need to get these monsters out to sea and a "we'll do it later" decision?
More alarmingly, are there similar points of peril lurking in today's (or tomorrrow's) vessels?
I think that is the thing. Everyone seems to want to see a one or the other. I think its more...everything has its place. Super carriers arent the end all and be all they need a escort.
Some peopel seem to obcess with ship vs ship. but modern combat is fleets. AA Ships like the ticos specialize in anti air with help from the Burkes etc subs hunt other subs frigates or LCS:shudder hunt subs and they all have a place.
Carriers will always have a place it just wont be so overpowering as it is now.
Use merchant raiders, not warships, warships are too obvious. Merchant raiders are much more effective because they can get close enough before revealing themselves to silence their targets before a warning can been broadcast. This gives them time to get away before warships can respond.
Large warships (battleships and heavy cruisers) can tie up more naval forces because there are fewer ships that can go one-on-one with them. But once located their ability to evade detection and tracking is limited, the net of forces seeking them then collapses inward and they are destroyed. They are best used as threats, like the Tirpitz, to tie up forces in case it sorties. This could be enhanced if there were multiple anchorages that it could move between to make it appear it was at sea, triggering a search and naval deployment while still safe. Odds are these vessels would never get the opportunity to fire on an enemy vessel.
The really effective vessels were merchant raiders with extremely long cruising ranges. The best were probably the WWI raiders Seadler (A 3 masted sailing ship) and Wolf IV (A coal carrier, which gave her an unrefueled range of 32,000 miles!). These ships could afford to go a long time between kills (which made them extremely difficult to track), constantly relocate their areas of operation (requiring more ships to cover potential areas of attack), and, given a couple days head start, the ability to out run naval pursuit by simply running them out of fuel. Neither was sunk by naval action.
And the best weapons were mines, which could close off entire areas to commerce long after the raiders had left. WWII raiders used moored and drift style contact mines, but more modern bottom sitting influence mines with long activation delays would be much more effective, and could even be deployed in anchorages or before hostilities commence undetected.
IronsightSniper
Member
And lets not forget that you don't need to actually sink the any Iowa-class ships, a simple airburst by a rather large missile above it's electronic arrays will Mission-kill her.
One more thing, Iowas do have heavy armor. The thickest part of their hull is over 350 mm thick. A PG-7VR Tandem-HEAT warhead can penetrate that. And if you give me the, "it's not just plain steel" speech, then I'd tell you that a RPG-28 can go through 1,000 meters.
Finally, these aren't itsy bitsy bombs we're talking about here that any Battleship can face. If say, the U.S. Govt recommissions the Iowas, you'd theoritically have Chinese and Russian Anti-Ship Missiles as your big bad threat. The P-700 Granit has a 750 kg (1,600 lb+) semi-armor piercing HE warhead which travels Mach 2.5 and has a range of about 500 km.
Simply put, Armored or not, a Battleship is worthless.
One more thing, Iowas do have heavy armor. The thickest part of their hull is over 350 mm thick. A PG-7VR Tandem-HEAT warhead can penetrate that. And if you give me the, "it's not just plain steel" speech, then I'd tell you that a RPG-28 can go through 1,000 meters.
Finally, these aren't itsy bitsy bombs we're talking about here that any Battleship can face. If say, the U.S. Govt recommissions the Iowas, you'd theoritically have Chinese and Russian Anti-Ship Missiles as your big bad threat. The P-700 Granit has a 750 kg (1,600 lb+) semi-armor piercing HE warhead which travels Mach 2.5 and has a range of about 500 km.
Simply put, Armored or not, a Battleship is worthless.
Following that same line of thought a Carrier is worthless. So is every ship but subs. We simply need to upgrade the missile defenses of our fleet.
IronsightSniper
Member
Actually, no, a Carrier is useful as they can act as the planes they carry can act as guided cruise missiles that can drop guided submunitions, which in a Nimitz case, would be JDAMs.
I mean, you can slap on a few Tomahawks onto an Iowa and call that armed, but in reality, anyone in the Defense community would much rather have a Tico.
HEAT warheads are overrated against warships. Add slate armor on the turrets, conning towers, and fire directors and they are pretty much useless. The hull is already nearly immune to HEAT penetration because the bunker spaces separating the inner hull and armor from the outer hull are even more effective, it is spaced armor on steroids.
IronsightSniper
Member
Which is what a Thermobaric warhead is for I presume?
For what?
Explode a thermobaric warhead outside the ship with the shutters closed and locked and you will damage nothing more than the sensors. Build a warhead that can punch inside before exploding and HEI works better.
You might well be right, there did seem to be an agressive offensive spirit running through the DNA of the RN. A desire for speed, heavier guns and rate of fire, all to close with the enemy and destroy quickly.
I read somewhere that there were so many safety features on the turrets on the Rodney & Nelson the guns could hardly be fired (and exageration I'm sure).
BTW there seems to be an strange similarity with the loss of the Audacious and the Ark Royal in WW2?
Return of the battleship?
I agree with a posting that appeared on another site. A modern battleship might be an entirely different vessel than past versions. A modern battleship might be a glorified missile launch platform with the only traditional guns being a close-in defense system (Phalanx). A vessel the size of a battleship would be able to carry adequate supplies of missiles to provide a variety of weapons, and numbers to provide sustained attacks. Imagine a "super Aegis system", able to defend itself, but also able to provide a close-in or over the horizon strikes, but also armored against the types of encounters our forces have recently faced. Given nuclear power, the range and speed of these vessels would be unsurpassed. Thanks to modern technology and the change in weapons, less personnel would be required than a traditional battleship, while providing more capabilities.
Just a thought, but something to consider in these days of less vessels and personnel trying to cover a wide variety of threats and more area.
I agree with a posting that appeared on another site. A modern battleship might be an entirely different vessel than past versions. A modern battleship might be a glorified missile launch platform with the only traditional guns being a close-in defense system (Phalanx). A vessel the size of a battleship would be able to carry adequate supplies of missiles to provide a variety of weapons, and numbers to provide sustained attacks. Imagine a "super Aegis system", able to defend itself, but also able to provide a close-in or over the horizon strikes, but also armored against the types of encounters our forces have recently faced. Given nuclear power, the range and speed of these vessels would be unsurpassed. Thanks to modern technology and the change in weapons, less personnel would be required than a traditional battleship, while providing more capabilities.
Just a thought, but something to consider in these days of less vessels and personnel trying to cover a wide variety of threats and more area.
- Status