Future of the Battleship

[Abraham Gubler]

Cheap shot. I said nothing about Burlington/Chobham, ceramics, etc. Monolithic is defined as ‘all of one piece’. I suppose if I had said homogeous instead you would have chided me for ignoring the fact that battleship armor was face hardened.

I was referring to the spaced armor effect created by the multiple layers of bulkheads, which should have been obvious from the sub paragraphs, which could causes the warhead to detonate at a non-optimal distance from the main armored belt.

Wake up on the angry side of bed did you? How am I meant to know exactly what you are ‘referring’ too when you write stuff but don’t mention it! You want me to read your mind? Here you go: you’re being a childish pendant attempting to score some points. You said monolithic so I mentioned layered and composite armours. Later in your post you talk to great length about armour spacing so I addressed that issue at that time. Grow up.

Slat armor is just a lighter weight version of spaced armor, I probably should have used that term instead, to reduce your confusion. But your reference to ‘you are going to need some very big slats’ would indicated a deliberate attempt at being obtuse.

No it isn’t and I addressed the spaced armour issue. I’m not being obtuse or confused but referring to fusing dynamics which you are obviously ignorant of or just didn’t get the joke. A mature response would be to nod politely rather than try and score a point.

As to a 5,000 lb shaped charge it was built by the Germans on the Mistel anti reinforced concrete, anti battleship weapon. I even linked to a picture of it in an earlier response to this thread. The STYX was built with a 1,000 lb shaped charge and so on. But I guess none of these weapons engineers knew what they were doing. Nor to did the users of battleships who withdrew them all from service…

 

[StobieWan]

I think the debate is around a new build, mention of the Iowa class & 16" guns is a bit far fetched. It's more in a modern Kirov space. Probably less likely to have an AWD present as it would have the fit itself and mounted a lot higher up?

I was talking about the armour on an Iowa - no-one's going to do a new-build surface combatant with large thickness's of armour because they're no longer very useful.

You could easily build something with guns and missiles of a heavy cruiser sort of size (DDG-1000 is about the size of a early WWI battleship) but there's no merit in sticking a pile of armour on it.

 

[Volkodav]

As to a 5,000 lb shaped charge it was built by the Germans on the Mistel anti reinforced concrete, anti battleship weapon. I even linked to a picture of it in an earlier response to this thread. The STYX was built with a 1,000 lb shaped charge and so on. But I guess none of these weapons engineers knew what they were doing. Nor to did the users of battleships who withdrew them all from service…

I am being lazy but has anyone mentioned that the Italian battleship Roma was sunk in 1943 by a pair of Fritz X radio controlled bombs. I also believe HMS Warspite was crippled by one. The British Lion Class was revisited post war but design work was discontinued once it was realised there was no way they could work in the necessary amount of deck armour to resist an armour piercing bomb dropped from a fighter bomber. The writting was on the wall mid WWII and only inertia carried the type on.

 

[PCShogun]

I am being lazy but has anyone mentioned that the Italian battleship Roma was sunk in 1943 by a pair of Fritz X radio controlled bombs. I also believe HMS Warspite was crippled by one. The British Lion Class was revisited post war but design work was discontinued once it was realised there was no way they could work in the necessary amount of deck armour to resist an armour piercing bomb dropped from a fighter bomber. The writting was on the wall mid WWII and only inertia carried the type on.

The Roma design had a substantially different armor belt layout than Iowa. Roma had only 1 significantly thick armored deck (varying 100-162mm), the Iowa had 2 (127+19mm and lower 142+19mm) in addition to various other 35-50mm layers on both ships. The lower armored deck on the Iowa (142+19mm) is the significant difference, as it represents an almost 100% increase in protection over the Roma.

The battleship argument always runs like this:
"Nothing can get through all that armour"
"Ah but..<insert incredibly long list of weapons that can>"
"..well...*obviously* we'd be right next to an AWD so you'd never get close enough.."
"So, why do you need the armour?"

In a nutshell, you are correct.

Still, I hate seeing all these disposable ships floating around. The thought of "One big mother of a ship", that is able to shrug off enemy missiles, bombs, and torpedoes; capable of launching missiles from every orifice, bristling with huge guns, and decked out like a modern cruise liner inside the hull; and carrying VTOL fighters, attack jets, and helicopters, just sounds too cool to stop dreaming about.

Oh Great StobieWan, Does the Death Star float?

 

[StobieWan]

The Roma design had a substantially different armor belt layout than Iowa. Roma had only 1 significantly thick armored deck (varying 100-162mm), the Iowa had 2 (127+19mm and lower 142+19mm) in addition to various other 35-50mm layers on both ships. The lower armored deck on the Iowa (142+19mm) is the significant difference, as it represents an almost 100% increase in protection over the Roma.






In a nutshell, you are correct.

Still, I hate seeing all these disposable ships floating around. The thought of "One big mother of a ship", that is able to shrug off enemy missiles, bombs, and torpedoes; capable of launching missiles from every orifice, bristling with huge guns, and decked out like a modern cruise liner inside the hull; and carrying VTOL fighters, attack jets, and helicopters, just sounds too cool to stop dreaming about.

Oh Great StobieWan, Does the Death Star float?

Hard to tell, you'd need a gas giant sized body of fluid to get it to bob up and down..then you'd need a fairly hefty chunk of plywood to keep those pesky proton torps out.

Coming back to the Roma, the biggest problem with the Fritz-X was that the tail fins didn't generate enough drag for the fuse to arm properly so often the weapon tore straight through the ship and out the bottom.

Assuming the deck arrangement was much stronger but that the warhead remained intact and functional, you might find Fritz-X did a lot *more* damage.

 

[swerve]

"The light cruiser HMS Uganda was hit by a Fritz-X off Salerno at 1440 on 13 September. The Fritz X passed through seven decks and exploded under her keel. All boiler fires were extinguished, sixteen men were killed, and Uganda took on 1,300 tons of water. Uganda was towed to Malta for repairs."

"A single Fritz-X passed through the roof of "C" turret and killed the turret crew and a damage control party when it exploded in the lower ammunition handling room. "

"One bomb [Fritz-X] penetrated six decks [of HMS Warspite] before exploding in number 4 boiler room. This explosion put out all fires and blew out the double bottom."

 

[StobieWan]

"The light cruiser HMS Uganda was hit by a Fritz-X off Salerno at 1440 on 13 September. The Fritz X passed through seven decks and exploded under her keel. All boiler fires were extinguished, sixteen men were killed, and Uganda took on 1,300 tons of water. Uganda was towed to Malta for repairs."

"A single Fritz-X passed through the roof of "C" turret and killed the turret crew and a damage control party when it exploded in the lower ammunition handling room. "

"One bomb [Fritz-X] penetrated six decks [of HMS Warspite] before exploding in number 4 boiler room. This explosion put out all fires and blew out the double bottom."

Taking any bets on what'd happen if one hit an Iowa ? Smash into smithereens or break straight through the armour and down a few decks before going off right in the middle? I suppose the modern answer would be the decellerometer armed fuse that can count decks/building levels so as to allow it to work against smaller ships?


Do you think more deck armour would have been better or worse in these instances?

They certainly made a mess of most stuff they hit, that's for sure.

 

[PCShogun]

Well, not all battleships were made the same. HMS Warspite was built with engagements of the types seen in World War I, whereas ships would fire at much closer range (no radar) and shells would mostly hit the armored belt and superstructure. The invention of bombing a ship from the air had not yet become common thought. Japan changed that. With the advent of radar, better guns, and better fire control, engagements took place at much greater range, and as a result, plunging fire soon revealed the flaw of a weakly armored deck. This is what happened to Hood, and I suspect, what allowed the Fritz-X to penetrate so deeply into Warspite.

The other two vessels were light cruisers, which depend upon speed, not armor , for their protection.

 

[swerve]

IIRC the one which sank Roma went through a turret, & exploded in the ammunition handling chamber beneath it.

I think they'd probably have penetrated any deck armour in use at the time. Thicker armour would just have meant they exploded earlier, & not penetrated so deep into the ship.

Warspite's deck armour was increased in a 1920s refit. I don't know what the final figure was.

 

[StobieWan]

Well, not all battleships were made the same. HMS Warspite was built with engagements of the types seen in World War I, whereas ships would fire at much closer range (no radar) and shells would mostly hit the armored belt and superstructure. The invention of bombing a ship from the air had not yet become common thought. Japan changed that. With the advent of radar, better guns, and better fire control, engagements took place at much greater range, and as a result, plunging fire soon revealed the flaw of a weakly armored deck. This is what happened to Hood, and I suspect, what allowed the Fritz-X to penetrate so deeply into Warspite.

The other two vessels were light cruisers, which depend upon speed, not armor , for their protection.

Point isn't how well protected the ships are or aren't - it's the fact that a guided weapon cobbled together under a state of war managed to comprehensively trash an armoured warship.

If you fancy another weapon put together in haste, let's drop one of these on a BB.


GBU-28 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

6.7 metres of rebar and still enough energy left over to run 100 metres down range.

Woosh.

 

[PCShogun]

Yup, that would do it. Be rough getting close to the drop point and then hanging around to keep the laser designator on target, but if you could . . . . WHAMOOO.

 

[alexsa]

Yup, that would do it. Be rough getting close to the drop point and then hanging around to keep the laser designator on target, but if you could . . . . WHAMOOO.

Modern seeker technology mean you dont necessarily need to laz the target. With respect to what kinetic energy can do to armour then look at what the tallboy did to Tirpitz. So much for armour.

 

[PO2GRV]

two points and two questions

1) i think we can all agree we've beaten this dead horse to a pulp: armor cannot defend a ship against modern weaponry

2) what would comparable weapons (as mentioned above) do to an aircraft carrier?

3) can escorts effectively defend against these kind of attacks?

4) carriers provide more "bang for the buck" than modern battleship analogs if operated with escorts, or are just as vulnerable as any other type of ship if operated alone

 

[fretburner]

Quick question: Are there modern anti-ship missiles which can do more damage than an armor-penetrating 16-in shell? Conversely, are there any modern surface combatants that can take a hit of one 16-in shell?

Nwy...

I guess the main thing against "resurrecting" the battleship is that even if it can withstand a barrage of anti-ship missiles, it cannot hit back effectively. A battleship would have taken a lot of hits from a modern destroyer firing harpoons before it can get into gun range and hit back.

 

[Belesari]

To the first Question. NO. No ship to my knowledge could take that. They simply lack the toughness of the older ships which were expected to Be HIT IN BATTLE. Take a look at the old destroyers. They got hit alot but because of theiur massive crews compared to today they could take hits which would lead to most vessels in a dry dock today and out of action.

Part of it is just technology. Part is design philosophy. Dont get hit seems to be todays standard. When hit US ships atleast have seemed to do well. For instance US ships have been hit by anti ship missiles and survived. The Cole ot hit by a blast much greater than a Antiship missiles. It survived. Its about design and compartmentalization.

Second part.

A battleship of today would be a Multi mission ship like any other today. The guns primary mission would be fire support upon ground forces during amphibious landings and during war time on targets within lets say 100 mi or so beyond the coast (which sounds like a tiny part but keep in mind most of earth people are near the coast.)

Its secondary mission would probably be as a Flagship and anti surface warfare. Just because you have those bug buns doesnt mean no other weapons are possible.

More than likely any modern US battleship would include harpoon launchers and probably VLS for Tomahawks.

I think one of the main reasons they arent built today is the navy doesnt like the idea of a non-carrier major capital ship not because they dont think the Battleships couldnt do the mission as it might make people decide 1 or 2 carriers can go.

Just my opinion others differ on it and i repect that.

Another is cost in both weapons and personel. While a modern battleship wouldnt require the massive 2,000+ personel it did before they would still require hundreds to operate right and a massive investment in weapons systems.

Quick question: Are there modern anti-ship missiles which can do more damage than an armor-penetrating 16-in shell? Conversely, are there any modern surface combatants that can take a hit of one 16-in shell?

Nwy...

I guess the main thing against "resurrecting" the battleship is that even if it can withstand a barrage of anti-ship missiles, it cannot hit back effectively. A battleship would have taken a lot of hits from a modern destroyer firing harpoons before it can get into gun range and hit back.

 

[Belesari]

two points and two questions

1) i think we can all agree we've beaten this dead horse to a pulp: armor cannot defend a ship against modern weaponry

2) what would comparable weapons (as mentioned above) do to an aircraft carrier?

3) can escorts effectively defend against these kind of attacks?

4) carriers provide more "bang for the buck" than modern battleship analogs if operated with escorts, or are just as vulnerable as any other type of ship if operated alone

Its one f those reasons i roll my eyes when people vent "the age of the super carrier is dead long live the helicopter carrier!".

The Super carrier is simply the most versitile, weapons, system ever made.

For instance How many ships are around from the year the Enterprise Launched?

A carrier is far easier to convert weapons wise than a destroyer or battleship. Think of the generations of aircraft that have been off her decks. Its amazing to realise many of the people aboard her now could have had grand fathers fly off of her decks or any of the inumerable jobs she has had done on her.

Replace the carrier? Cool what 20 other warships will do her job.

 

[fretburner]

Second part.

A battleship of today would be a Multi mission ship like any other today. The guns primary mission would be fire support upon ground forces during amphibious landings and during war time on targets within lets say 100 mi or so beyond the coast (which sounds like a tiny part but keep in mind most of earth people are near the coast.)

Yes, I do know this fact. However, does the USN think they will see a large amphibious assault in the next couple of decades? For example, the US air-sea battle strategy has shifted to a scenario with Iran and North Korea and (possibly?) arresting a "China expansion" (or whatever they call it), do they see a large amphibious assault from the Persian Gulf, or do another assault on North Korea beaches like McArthur's back in the 50s?

Its secondary mission would probably be as a Flagship and anti surface warfare. Just because you have those bug buns doesnt mean no other weapons are possible.

This I haven't thought of. Doesn't the USN only have 2 serviceable Flag ships? Maybe they can replace those with with Battleships

More than likely any modern US battleship would include harpoon launchers and probably VLS for Tomahawks.

Yes. Quad-pack ESSMs too for self defense.

I wonder how many VLS you could fit in there if you built a new battleship similar to the Iowa but without a turret aft? The number of TLAMs these converted Ohio-class subs are nothing short of amazing!

I think one of the main reasons they arent built today is the navy doesnt like the idea of a non-carrier major capital ship not because they dont think the Battleships couldnt do the mission as it might make people decide 1 or 2 carriers can go.

Just my opinion others differ on it and i repect that.

I think you've identified a solution of building new battleships without letting go of 1 or 2 carriers -- make them replacement flagships

Another is cost in both weapons and personel. While a modern battleship wouldnt require the massive 2,000+ personel it did before they would still require hundreds to operate right and a massive investment in weapons systems.

Maybe the USN can reduce the required crew to half if they built a new one with several systems automated?

 

[StobieWan]

Maybe the USN can reduce the required crew to half if they built a new one with several systems automated?

Surely can - delete the 127 mm mounts each side of an Iowa and you'd save 250-330 people, modernise the radio room and you'd drop from 25 sailors to 5-6. Go from the 2,000 psi steam plant to GT's and cruise diesels and you'd save many hundreds more.

Automate the turret operation as in AGS and you'd save almost as many as for dropping the 127mm mounts.

 

[PCShogun]

Surely can - delete the 127 mm mounts each side of an Iowa and you'd save 250-330 people, modernise the radio room and you'd drop from 25 sailors to 5-6. Go from the 2,000 psi steam plant to GT's and cruise diesels and you'd save many hundreds more.

Automate the turret operation as in AGS and you'd save almost as many as for dropping the 127mm mounts.

Do all that and you might as well build a modern day cruiser. Oh wait, that is exactly what they did!

 

[StobieWan]

Do all that and you might as well build a modern day cruiser. Oh wait, that is exactly what they did!

I was responding to the post "Maybe the USN can reduce the required crew to half if they built a new one with several systems automated?"

Emphasis on "new"..

In other words, yes, if you built a new battleship (or battleship analog) then you could save crew size.

I'm *not* suggesting this is a viable course of action however.