14" Naval Artillery

[Maximus]

Man you talk about some infantry slaughter-ers. One of those shells lands anywhere close to a horde of infantry, say Good-Bye to at least a platoon or more.

I just did a Test scenario with three 14" spotters and one 240mm spotter against a Motorized Battallion and several 251/1 and Hotchkiss tanks and the AAR was something else! Something like 415 casualties (128 KIA), 115 captured, 6 guns and mortars destroyed, 24 vehicles knocked out.

Score: 95 to 5 Men OK: 15 (Artillery Spotters) to 6.

------------------
"Live by the sword, live a good LONG life!"-Minsc, BGII

[Wayne]

I did a test scenario once where I set up 4 German artillery spotters with heavy rockets, some 105, 75 and 81mm mortars against a company of American infantry who were conducting an attack to take the victory flags in the center of the map. All I did as the German player was to target the victory flags with artillery as soon as the Americans reached them. After 6 turns the Germans won a clear victory.
With 14" naval artillery you don't have to have direct hits. Anything within 50m's will do the trick.

------------------
Blessed be the Lord my strength who teaches my hands to war and my fingers to fight.

[Old Crow]

You guys should see those things shoot in person.
In '90 the ship I was on participated in the largest assembly of U.S. naval units since WWII. In company were the USS New Jersey and USS Missouri. We assembled near Guam and during the exercise an old freighter was towed out for target practice for the BB's. My ship was fortunate to have a front row seat right behind the MISSOURI and the NEW JERSEY was in front of her. They both opened up with their 16" guns at the same time. Needless to say that freighter didn't last long. Most impressive!

[Wayne]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Old Crow:
You guys should see those things shoot in person.
In '90 the ship I was on participated in the largest assembly of U.S. naval units since WWII. In company were the USS New Jersey and USS Missouri. We assembled near Guam and during the exercise an old freighter was towed out for target practice for the BB's. My ship was fortunate to have a front row seat right behind the MISSOURI and the NEW JERSEY was in front of her. They both opened up with their 16" guns at the same time. Needless to say that freighter didn't last long. Most impressive! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What you saw was a piece of history in action. I doubt that there will ever be a salvo of 16" guns again.

------------------
Blessed be the Lord my strength who teaches my hands to war and my fingers to fight.

[I/O Error]

Big mistake retiring them, in my opinion...

That kind of firepower has a nasty tendency to be needed at the EXACT moment you no longer possess it... http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/frown.gif

[Phoenix]

Other than shore bombardment (and a bit inland) what purpose would they serve today?

Don't get me wrong. I've been on the Mo and think that class of ship was awesome. But really...in today's climate, a BB?

Other than transporting hundreds of Harpoons or lobing big ass shells at shore targets, I don't see it's purpose.

Anyone?

[I/O Error]

Well, considering they have the power and range to hit any target over 30 miles away (actually, I think it's more, not sure anymore) and destroy it with pinpoint accuracy, I'd say they are quite useful.

Among other things, their guns have more power than ANY other conventional weapons we currently have, other than Fuel-Air Explosives and that jury-rigged "bunker-buster" bomb created during the Gulf War. (currently mothballed)

We have three ways of destroying heavily emplaced targets: Nuclear weapons, those mothballed bombs (which only two aircraft are even rated to carry), and the BBs guns. Tell me you honestly think it's a good idea to just chuck out a perfectly good (and irreplacable) weapons platform.

The ships have the ability to carry any weapon imaginable, and the cargo ability you mentioned is invaluable. The modern BB is a super hightech weapon system, suitable for any task ranging from amphibious landing to convoy defense.

And anyway, think of it as insurance: We already have them available, and we just might need that sort of thing one day.

(We did the last time we went to war, right?)

**** happens to the unprepared. Sheer paranoia is a valuable skill... http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif

Edit: Oopsie. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/tongue.gif

[This message has been edited by I/O Error (edited 12-30-2000).]

[SenorBeef]

Special ammuninition in development a while back was going to have a range of somewhere near 100 miles out of a 16" gun... I think the statistic is that 75% of the worlds population is within 100 miles of any major body of water. Actually, the cost to recommission an Iowa is roughly equivelant to buying a new destroyer - all of the major tech upgrades were done back in the 80s. They're pretty useful as fuel carriers for the rest of the fleet. You can stay out alot longer when your gas powered escorts have fuel.. battleships can carry millions of gallons of extra fuel for them. And a BB can serve as a machine shop, to fix broken things for any ship out at sea.. And even strictly as a terror weapon, they're great. In all of the vietnam war, it was never requested that any carrier left the area, but they refused to talk in the peace talks so long as the Iowa was still in their sea.
The only major disadvantage is that it takes alot of crewing and associated costs, but it pays off as more than a simple shore bombardment vehicle. As it is, the best gunfire support the navy has is a single 5" gun on its cruisers... and tomahawks aren't tactical support weapons.

[Manchildstein]

i've seen a 14" grouping (4 shells) knock out upwards of 30 vehicles in a single swipe. Needless to say, my attack was over before it ever got started.

Alt-A

Andy (formerly "grunto")

[AL the red]

[This message has been edited by AL the red (edited 12-31-2000).]

[Mirage2k]

Regarding the decommissioning of the Missouri, (this is only my opinion) I think the belief in the Navy right now is that air power can cover any hole created by the departure of the 16" guns. The Navy seems to have become a second air force in recent years, or at least that's the way it appears. Personally, I'm not sure that the decommissioning of one ship creates a whole lot of holes.

-Andrew

------------------
"No, it's not that kind of relationship. We're just friends. We are together all the time, but I never touch her porcelain skin, her soft, red lips, like rose petals from the emperor's bathwater! Bathwater, I tell you, bathwateeeeeeer!"

[Lee]

There is a web site dedicated to petitioning congress to reactivate at least
two of our battleships for their invaluable role in mobile, precise and
utterly devastating firepower. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

Check it out.
http://usnfsa.com/

[Major Tom]

I think that the main problem is, after 55+ years, these ships are starting to show their age. The Essex and Midway Class carriers were extremely useful, but, the cost to keep them running wasn't worth that of what they would get out of them. This is the same for the Iowa class battleships. There still migth be a need for them, but, the cost to keep them running isn't worth the benefit of them being a part of the fleet. Plus, if sunk (and they are very vulnerable to modern weaponry) you will loose so much military power.

The 'best' possible scenario is for the USN to create some sort of Monitor class, not quite as large and expensive as a battleship, but, capable of massive firepower. Possibly even the inexpensive pre-dreadnaught design could be rehashed? (you no longer need multiple guns to ensure a hit with radar tracking)

[Old Crow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:
The Essex and Midway Class carriers were extremely useful, but, the cost to keep them running wasn't worth that of what they would get out of them. This is the same for the Iowa class battleships. There still migth be a need for them, but, the cost to keep them running isn't worth the benefit of them being a part of the fleet. Plus, if sunk (and they are very vulnerable to modern weaponry) you will loose so much military power.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The discussion of the BB's survivability would always come up in CIC whenever we had one steaming in the vicinity. When pondering the outcome of a cruise missile attack the common remark would be, "They'd just go out and hold sweepers." ASCM's aren't designed to penetrate that much armor.

[Major Tom]

If they have weaponry capable of smashing through armoured air bunkers, I am pretty sure they can get through the Iowa's armoured deck and belt. Keeping these large and expensive ships in service when cheaper ones could fulfil their roles is not a wize move for any navy in peacetime.

[Nathman]

The manpower required to keep BB's in service is another factor which the navy looked at when deciding to mothball them, especially in a climate where the recruiting goals are tough to meet. Now if we would re-instate the draft....

[Major Tom]

All you need is a good old fashioned war!

Keeping these ships alive will also mean that you will have to manufacture replacement parts, ammunition, and other equipment not used in any other type of vessel in the Navy.

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nathman:
Now if we would re-instate the draft....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...college enrollment rates, emigration (legal or otherwise), civil disobedience, not-so-civil disobedience, and a whole host of other goodies would skyrocket.


------------------
Soy super bien soy super super bien soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super

[Old Crow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:
If they have weaponry capable of smashing through armoured air bunkers, I am pretty sure they can get through the Iowa's armoured deck and belt. Keeping these large and expensive ships in service when cheaper ones could fulfil their roles is not a wize move for any navy in peacetime.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be short-range visual or laser guided weaponry; unless you're talking about something comparable to the Tomahawk. Incidentally, the U.S. Navy has abandoned the Tomahawk in the TASM role partially due to the shift from open-ocean to littoral warfare. The likelihood of hitting background shipping poses too great a risk when using a long range ASCM in the littoral arena. The Harpoon load-out has been decreased for the same reason. The Russians have an ALCM with that capability but no longer have the multitudes of delivery platforms to make it a substantial threat to a CV/BB battle group.
BB's always had a couple units AW capable in company and in time of war would be in proximity of a CV that would provide greater depth in air-defense. Somebody coming out to target a BB with a weapon capable of bunker busting would be a desperate act indeed. Besides, ships move, bunkers don’t. Utilizing a land attack weapon in an anti-shipping role opens up a host of other variables to contend with.
As far as cost involved, the BB's were re-activated at around $450 mil each. They could be re-activated today for around $110 mil each. Arleighs cost $1 bil. a pop and Tico’s a little more. The up-grade included the cost of digitizing the 16” and 5” fire-control systems and adding other up-to-date sensors/systems that are commonplace on U.S. ships; except for the Aegis system (which, despite popular belief, is not an end-all air defense system). Also, BB’s run on steam plants, most of the U.S. Navy’s amphib's are steam driven. Up until 20-25 years ago most ships were steam so there’s plenty of mothballed Babcock and Wilcox spare parts. All the press hoopla about the expense of manning and maintaining BB’s is suspect. The accident on the Iowa didn’t help much either. 1,500 BB sailors didn’t get paid anymore than any other sailor. Parts, they’re stockpiled. 16” barrels, there’s plenty of those too not to mention the ammo to go with them. BB’s cost $68 mil annually to operate and maintain; a Tico’ costs $53 mil. For the price of one F/A-18 you can operate a BB for a year and deliver much greater lethality, not to mention a BB’s inherent survivability. So actually losing an Arleigh or Tico’ would be significantly more costly dollar wise than losing a BB.
I've got a piece of the deck from the first ship I was on, FFG-37, and it's about as thick as this pencil on my desk. Decks on the larger classes aren’t much thicker. The 6” of grade “A” steel armor used on the decks of BB’s ( it’s 12” at the waterline) provides quite a bit more protection. You hit any ship today with an ASCM carrying 1000lbs of HE and you’re going to put it out of action. The two Exocets fired at the STARK carried less than 500 lbs of HE; one detonated inside, the other whistled right through it!
As someone mentioned earlier, the world’s population is mostly in the vicinity of the coastline. BB’s don’t have to worry about penetrating layers of air defense to get ordnance on target. You can shoot down a Tomahawk, shooting down a 16” round or 9 of them at a whack every 30 seconds would be beyond the capabilities of most if not all air defense systems. The destructive power of a 16” round is a heck of a lot cheaper than a Tomahawk.
Today, having 4 of them might not be necessary but I think keeping one active would provide the Navy with an option that they are scurrying to provide by something as cost effective as a BB’s firepower.

[Lacky]

Using a 60 year old BB isn't wise. It'd make more sense for the US navy to design a triple turret, single 16"+ rifled-barrel/turret monitor, which would maneuver faster and operate more efficiently. Such a ship (monitor, battlecruiser) could be outfitted with a proper VL system instead of the ad hoc Missouri retrofit.

[CATguy]

The BB as a weapons system is completely obsolete. They are extremely ex*****ive to operate and they are huge targets of opportunity. There are better ways to deliver the firepower needed. This weapons system saw its heydays in the 40's and will never see it again. I wont even go into the morale issues the navy had with the BB's in the 80's and early 90's.

[I/O Error]

<rant>

BB guns = Pinpoint accuracy at a higher ROF and relatively cheap compared to:

1.) Aircraft. Expensive to build, fuel, arm, train pilots, repair, etc. Not to mention, VERY dangerous job. SAMs are still hell on pilots.

2.) Cruise missiles. The guns on a BB are more powerful, more accurate, cheaper, and move more quickly.


It was mentioned that BB are great targets of opportunity. So were (and are) the Kirov class of ships the Russians made. And we FEARED those things. Also, studies have stated that most conventional weapons simply will not do the damage needed to knock out and/or sick an Iowa class Battleship.

Missiles? That's why God made Aegis cruisers.

Torpedos? Oh c'mon. If the ASW boys and submarines screw up THAT badly, it DESERVES to be hit! http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/tongue.gif

Nuclear weapons? Just as reasonable to ask the same question of a carrier. Those things have NO defense, and cost a pretty penny too. More expensive than a BB to build/maintain. And yet we ALL know that we can not be a superpower without them.

Battleships? They're freaking invincible superweapons, for Christ's sake! Best things ever made for amphib. landings, great weapon of PSYCHOLOGICAL warfare, and recent advances in gunnery make it possible to upgrade the barrels/ammunition used on BB to allow ranges of up to 100 miles. (ummm... Actually, I think it said more, but since I am unsure, best to err on the side of caution)

Tell me you don't like the idea of a weapon that CAN NOT be knocked out of the air after being shot and that can reach (according to the press releases) 75% of the world's land areas.

Also, consider this: We have/had three ways to knock out heavily emplaced targets. (Permanent reinforced bridges, underground bunks, underground supply depots, etc)

1.) Nukes. Yeah, really bloody likely, I know; but that IS one of the our possible tools.

2.) Remember that jury-rigged bomb (used old artillery barrels, clever job) we manufactured to hit Saddam's bunker? (I do, I was living in Saudi Arabia at the time) Those are NOT in production currently and less than half a dozen of them exist. Not to mention, only TWO aircraft in our inventory can even carry ONE of the damn things. And bunkers like that tend to have a HELLACIOUS amount of AAA and SAM coverage.

3.) BB guns. Wrath-of-God powerful, pinpoint accurate, IMPOSSIBLE to intercept, etc. Cheap too.

Don't say I forgot cruise missiles, you would be wrong. They DO NOT CARRY SUFFICIENT PAYLOAD. (Or possess even a tenth of the needed penetration power)

If nothing else, the BB is a powerful reminder to the world that we OWN the ****ing oceans. Presence of force is the best way to remind people of that. Everytime China stages "missile drills" off Taiwan, (ROC) we send in 7th Fleet or another group if closer. And you know what? The commies play REAL nice when we do. They FEAR the US navy. A BB? With just one we could stream up and down their coast, and destroy EVERYTHING in range. They know that. Deterence.


In my opinion, the Battleship is simply too powerful and useful a tool to simply throw away. The Carrier and the Battleship BOTH have absolutely essential roles to play in America's role as the Guardian of the Free Oceans.

</rant> http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/biggrin.gif

Rebuttals?

[This message has been edited by I/O Error (edited 01-01-2001).]

[Old Crow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by I/O Error:
<rant>

Battleships? They're freaking invincible superweapons, for Christ's sake! Best things ever made for amphib. landings, great weapon of PSYCHOLOGICAL warfare, and recent advances in gunnery make it possible to upgrade the barrels/ammunition used on BB to allow ranges of up to 100 miles.
</rant> http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/biggrin.gif
[This message has been edited by I/O Error (edited 01-01-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was off the coast of Somalia in ’95 when we pulled the last of the civilians and Marines out of Mogadishu. By the time the Marines closed down their perimeter and prepared to egress it was low tide and 2-3 hundred yards between the waterline and the sand dunes. I watched from my ship as those Somali’s came up over the sand dunes and fired down onto the Marines. The next day I heard more than one Marine cursing the ineffectiveness of the 5” pop guns on the DD’s and CG’s in company. The intimidating sight of the BB alone might have saved a few lives that day.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by I/O Error:
<rant>

If nothing else, the BB is a powerful reminder to the world that we OWN the ****ing oceans. Presence of force is the best way to remind people of that. Everytime China stages "missile drills" off Taiwan, (ROC) we send in 7th Fleet or another group if closer. And you know what? The commies play REAL nice when we do. They FEAR the US navy. A BB? With just one we could stream up and down their coast, and destroy EVERYTHING in range. They know that. Deterence.


In my opinion, the Battleship is simply too powerful and useful a tool to simply throw away. The Carrier and the Battleship BOTH have absolutely essential roles to play in America's role as the Guardian of the Free Oceans.

</rant> http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/biggrin.gif

Rebuttals?

[This message has been edited by I/O Error (edited 01-01-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Commies", in the year 2001... I fear you have been watching too much of Dr Stangelove... Buck Turgidson here we come!

Regards

Jim R.

[Mirage2k]

Forgive my ignorance, but I had thought that the battleship concept had pretty much died out after World War II, due to advances in aircraft and torpedo technology.

-Andrew

------------------
"No, it's not that kind of relationship. We're just friends. We are together all the time, but I never touch her porcelain skin, her soft, red lips, like rose petals from the emperor's bathwater! Bathwater, I tell you, bathwateeeeeeer!"

[argie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mirage2k:
Forgive my ignorance, but I had thought that the battleship concept had pretty much died out after World War II, due to advances in aircraft and torpedo technology.


-Andrew

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The BB concept as naval weapon died. The BB as ground support weapon arose http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

Ariel

[Major Tom]

Actually, the Iowa class Battleships were relatively poorly protected. 6" Deck armour and 12" belt armour were pretty low when compared to Japanese, British, Italian and German contemporary Battleships. The Iowa's never suffered any battle damage, but, if they are like their predacessors (with same armour strength at the same angles) then they would have suffered greatly, even from single 500 kg bomb hits. Ships like the North Carolina and South Dakota were heavily damaged by relatively small hits.

6" deck armour might seem like a lot, but, battleships with heavier armour were sunk by relatively few hits. To say that battleships are unsinkable is the same claim that Vice Admiral Tom Phillips said when he went out with the Prince of Wales (one of the best protected ships of her time) and the Repulse to get sunk by Japanese aircraft.

The Iowa class is almost 60 years old. It is about time that they are replaced.

[I/O Error]

You read my other arguments?

C'mon folks, I made a huge ranting post with a lot of good points. Can't you guys at least TRY to debate them? http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/tongue.gif

P.S. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:
"Commies", in the year 2001... I fear you have been watching too much of Dr Stangelove... Buck Turgidson here we come!

Regards

Jim R.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh c'mon. The Chinese and North Koreans may not be as hardcore as they WERE, but they're both still socialists old-boys clubs. (Not to mention, we REALLY don't like either of them and the feelings are mutual.)

Underestimating enemy = you get a knife in the back. You know that. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by I/O Error (edited 01-01-2001).]

[Ellros]

I seem to recall a couple of the Iowa class taking kamikaze hits and as was mentioned in an earlier post, the sweepers went out to clean up. About the only damage suffered was to the open 40mm and 20mm gun positions, but nothing ever penetrated the main armor.

[I/O Error]

Exactly! Like I said, the DoD has publicly stated that most conventional weapons will not damage a BB sufficiently.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/biggrin.gif

[Triggerhappy]

Well, if those battleships are unsinkable how come there are so many of them lying on the sea floor? http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif
If they managed to knock out better armored BB's than the Iowa with weaponry of the 40's do you really think that "With just one we could stream up and down [China's] coast, and destroy EVERYTHING in range" in the year 2001? Nah.


------------------
Rührt euch!

CMPFCICM2 - Combat Mission Players for Campaigns in Combat Mission 2 - Join us! ;D

[This message has been edited by Triggerhappy (edited 01-01-2001).]

[gibsonm]

I'm not a squid but I thought the US was looking into "arsenal" ships (small crew, heaps a VL missile launchers, auto loaders, etc) for shore bombardment?

Would it be possible / useful to remove the aft section of a BB's superstructure and replace it with a flat deck of VLSM units?

That way you would keep most of the guns (and their radars, directors, etc) and with the weight saved there would be a major improvement in speed / endurance. Presumably the manning bill would drop as well.

------------------
Regards,

Mark:-{)
Getting in line for a Mercury

[Major Tom]

Uh, Kamikaze's were on the most part ineffective. Only a few planes used on Kamikaze missions could have a bomb load or reach sufficient enough speed to cause damage on even moderately armoured ships. The reason that they did so much damage is that they primarily targetted weakly armoured Essex class CV's and unarmoured Destroyers.

21" and 24" Torpedos, which are carried in just about every attack submarine are fully capable of sinking any ship afloat, even the venerable Iowa class battleships. One 24" Torpedo ripped a gaping hole in the side of the North Carolina, which had the same belt armour as the Iowa. One torpedo nearly sent this ship to the bottom. Also, the armoured protection is only stated as MAXIMUM, which covers only around 40% of the vessel. Most of the ship is relatively unarmoured.

Here's an example of the vulnerability of obsolete warships to modern weaponry. The ex-USN CL Phoenix was sold to Argentina, and quckly sunk by ONE 21" Torpedo fired by the RN Submarine Conquerer (?) during the Falkland war. It was fully escorted by the most modern vessels of the age. Sure, it armour wasn't quite as thick as the Iowa, but, it just goes to show that even armoured vessels are vulernable to modern weaponry.

It only takes a 500 kg bomb correctly placed to sink a Battleship. The technology to sink the Iowa's is well over 60 years old.

[Maximus]

This topic maybe already dead, but here's my final opinion.

Isn't the greatest ship in anyone's fleet now the Aircraft Carrier???

A Carrier full of planes has more firepower than any BB. Granted the BB was the supreme battlewagon of years gone by, but smaller faster escort type ships have come about with as much firepower as what the post-WWII era BBs had. I'll take a couple radar-controlled Phallanx mini-guns as anti-missile/aircraft defense anyday over all the small AA guns on a BB.

[Jeremy Sadler]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phoenix:
Other than shore bombardment (and a bit inland) what purpose would they serve today?
-snip-
Other than transporting hundreds of Harpoons or lobing big ass shells at shore targets, I don't see it's purpose.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To paraphrase, badly, someone somewhere: it's not the use of power, but the projection of power, that's important.

With one (let alone two!) of those babies sitting off my coast, I'd be worried!

[von Lucke]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeremy Sadler:
To paraphrase, badly, someone somewhere: it's not the use of power, but the projection of power, that's important.

With one (let alone two!) of those babies sitting off my coast, I'd be worried!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Until some fanatic in a row-boat loaded with explosives hauls up along side...

The BB is the penile implant of warships! The only reason to have one is for the bragging rights, "my ship is bigger than yours!". I thought gunboat diplomacy went out of fashion in the 1920's?

I'd recomend A Glorious Way to Die --- about the final mission of the Yamato --- if you want to see how much punishment a BB can take and still keep moving.

Unfortunately, it's not 1945 anymore, we're not in the midst of a total war, and BB's are just to expensive to maintain when other, more easily deployable weapon systems are out there that will do the same job for half the cost.

[Old Crow]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:
[B] "Commies", in the year 2001... I fear you have been watching too much of Dr Stangelove... Buck Turgidson here we come!

It's not always what you see, but what you don't see. I've been stationed in Japan 11 out of 19 years and there's a lot that goes on in this corner of the world that doesn't make it onto CNN or your local newspaper.

[Old Crow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus:
This topic maybe already dead, but here's my final opinion.

Isn't the greatest ship in anyone's fleet now the Aircraft Carrier???

A Carrier full of planes has more firepower than any BB. Granted the BB was the supreme battlewagon of years gone by, but smaller faster escort type ships have come about with as much firepower as what the post-WWII era BBs had. I'll take a couple radar-controlled Phallanx mini-guns as anti-missile/aircraft defense anyday over all the small AA guns on a BB. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The gist of this whole debate has gotten lost. The point is that there is a gaping hole in the U.S. Navy's ability to provide adequate surface fire support for forces making an amphibious or close ashore assault. Depending on the scale of the hostilities, you're not always going to have a carrier in support (check my earlier post regarding Somalia). I work with guys that teach NSFS (Naval Surface Fire Support) and they've been around since the last time we had BB's in the fleet so to them teaching NSFS to todays 5" plotting teams is well, almost comical.

Oh, the last time I sailed with a BB it had 4 Phalanx mounts.

[Speedy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus:

Isn't the greatest ship in anyone's fleet now the Aircraft Carrier???
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My understanding is that the greatest, most powerful vessel in anyones fleet today is also one of the cheapest, the good old submarine.


------------------
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

I have nothing else to say. Ya, quote that you rat bastards.
-Meeks

[I/O Error]

Like I said previously, if we are so worried about the danger of having a BB get sunk, why don't we ask the same thing about Carriers? Those things are a HUNDRED times more vulnerable, without it's escorts, than a BB.

Why don't we ask that? Because the carrier is too useful. We NEED them.

The fact is, we DO NOT have a replacement for the sheer firepower of the Battleship. Aircraft? Unlike the movies, they are NOT as accurate as most people think. When you're surrounded by AAA and SAM batteries, you are NOT flying straight and level to the target. Most bombs dropped while in "hot" areas MISS!

Also, it is relatively cheap and easy to defend against aircraft. The equipment needed to waste aircraft are a LOT cheaper than the targets they engage.

The shells of a BB, once fired, are unstoppable.

Aircraft? Fragile, relatively easy to knock out.

Cruise missiles? Slow, unmanuverable, and predictable.

16" shells? Oh, you'll see it on radar. But by God, the only thing you can DO about it is duck... http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/biggrin.gif

The battleship has powers we can not replace. Did ANYBODY read my earlier post on, (as an example) what we have available to take out heavily emplaced targets such as reinforced concrete bridges or hardened bunkers?

(The Iraqis had crap equipment compared to what we and the rest of the world makes in terms of buildings. We have more money to spend, so we get better stuff)

Lets revisit the idea of Battleship vulnerability.

Aircraft: Aegis cruisers (two to each Battle Group is typical) are the finest anti-air and anti-missile defenses in the world. BARE NONE. Not much will get past them. Besides, no battlegroup will get close enough to shore without 1.) neutralizing all enemy airfields and 2.) scrapping together even MORE defenses.

Missiles: Again, Aegis cruisers, PLUS the added bonus of the Phalanx Close In Weapon System (CIWS; say: See-Whiz) This includes not only traditional missiles, but ALSO the sea skimmer variety.

Torpedos (submarines): The United States Battle Group Formation has the best equipment and best training to use in the field of Anti Submarine Warfare. Not much will get in. If it is safe enough for our Carriers, (and it is) than it is REALLY safe enough for a BB.

After all, two Los Angeles 688(I) class submarines are part of the normal makeup of our surface groups.

The Battleship is not vulnerable. Not with what we can use to defend it with.

[SenorBeef]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mirage2k:
Forgive my ignorance, but I had thought that the battleship concept had pretty much died out after World War II, due to advances in aircraft and torpedo technology.

-Andrew

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


This is largely a misconception. Commonly, documentaries throw all sorts of "The aircraft carrier revolutionized naval warfare, instantly negating the effect of the battleship" comments. The battleship has largely become useless as an anti-ship naval fighting vehicle, but it has become even more potent in its role as a shore bombardment weapon. Also, an interesting statistic I read a while back.. it takes the entire air fleet from 5 full carriers to inflict the same amount of damage on shore targets that a single battleship can do in a half hour.

[saru3000]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Old Crow:

It's not always what you see, but what you don't see. I've been stationed in Japan 11 out of 19 years and there's a lot that goes on in this corner of the world that doesn't make it onto CNN or your local newspaper.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yokosuka?

[Old Crow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by saru3000:
Yokosuka?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hai

[saru3000]

I'm a navy brat.Spent the 80's on Atsugi.

[Heinz 25th PzReg]

antispam-bump

[I/O Error]

I love this thread, somebody read my earlier posts and argue battleships with me! http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/biggrin.gif

Umm... please? http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/tongue.gif

------------------
Honor, Duty, Courage.

Valhalla awaits you, honorable warrior...

------------------------

"If you find yourself alone, riding through green fields with the sun on your face, do not be troubled, for you are in Elysium, and YOU ARE ALREADY DEAD!"

[Jeff Heidman]

What's to argue?

Everyone agrees that the firepower of 16" shells is awesome.

The point is that a WW2 era BB takes an exorbitant amount of resources to maintain. They have a monstrous crew, are a floating maintenance nightmare, and, when all is said and done, are probably not worth the cost involved in keeping them operational.

Sure, there is no replacement for what they can do. But that is not the issue. The issue is that the US Navy has finite resources with which to work, and spending a large chunk of them so we can swagger around talking about how big our guns are is just not worth it.

How often is it the case that there is a threat that is

A.) Big enough to warrant BB sized firepower
B.) Sitting within range of a handy shore that we control
and
C.) Isolated enough that there will not be massive collateral damage?

The BB is a great "cool" weapon. But the negatives in todays world outweigh the positives. I would much rather see the Navy spend those resources on a new attack aircraft (for example).

Jeff Heidman

[Hilltopper]

All I can say, if I'm coming in from the sea to establish a beachhead, I would want those 14/16 inchers behind me. We've lost the expertise to build BBs now days and we'll never have the serious capacity to invade well established coastal area again without them...

Ok, maybe surface combat is outdated, but you can't dispute the critical support function a BB WILL provide.

[Polar]

As it is now, the BB is obsolete... really it is.

As has been shown, the modern war is one of air superiority. Establish that, and I don't care if the target is on shore or 500 miles inland, the Carrier and it's compliment aircraft can take it out.

The #1 knock on the 16" bombardmebt is that probably 80% of the total firepower is waisted... as it will spill over onto other non-essential targets.

With air superiority (which the BB needs to opperate anyway), Carrier planes can pin point their firepower and, conversley, deliver 80% of their fire power directly to target.

It may take a little longer, but the carrier IS more efficient. Hell, it's so efficient it made a "warrior" out of Bill Clinton!!! http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/biggrin.gif

Joe

------------------
"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

[This message has been edited by Polar (edited 01-08-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Polar (edited 01-08-2001).]

[Mark IV]

There are no Iowa-class battleships "lying on the sea floor".

North Carolina was a North Carolina-class battleship. It was a lucky hit on a weak spot, btw. It still didn't sink. Iowa has better anti-torp armor than NC's. It also has 60 years of ASW development on its side.

Comparing the damage to the Cole to that which might be sustained by an armored Iowa class battleship, is like machine-gunning your family car to gauge the effects of MG fire on an Abrams tank.

Iowas exist now. The Navy is researching new long-range naval support weapons which will be, it is safe to say, expensive, less damaging than 16" rounds, and a long time in development.

One 16" ICM round disperses 656 ICM DP bomblets (as much in one shell as in two artillery batteries).

One 9 x 16" salvo = one complete volley of an entire division's support arty (109 x 155mm).

Battleships were designed to be shot at. Modern warships are not. Their mere existence in a theater forces the OPFOR to divert resources to a separate defense.

Battleships strike ground targets with more accuracy than mass aerial bombardments, without regard for weather conditions, and without risking both planes and pilots (and the subsequent hostage/rescue media circus and political "crisis").

Iowa-class battleships do carry Tomahawks (they launched over 1000 of them in the Gulf War) and remotely piloted video recon drones for spotting. Cruise missiles have great range, but nowhere near the destructive power of 16" guns.

They cost far less to operate than aircraft carriers (about 4 for 1?).

I would never advocate predicating our entire defense on a 60-year-old platform, but these monsters are a "bird in the hand" with intrinsic value. Anything that the Russian Navy, the PRC, and the US media hates that much, has got to be good.

[wwb_99]

But just imagine 16" copperhead rounds. Ouch.


------------------
Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hilltopper:
All I can say, if I'm coming in from the sea to establish a beachhead, I would want those 14/16 inchers behind me. We've lost the expertise to build BBs now days and we'll never have the serious capacity to invade well established coastal area again without them...

Ok, maybe surface combat is outdated, but you can't dispute the critical support function a BB WILL provide.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The thing is, there are just not many opportunities for the military to do sea-borne amphibious landings anymore. And if we did have to do one, the ability to provide close in fire support with air power and helicopters would have to suffice.

Again, you are only looking at half the equation. Sure, 16"" NGFS is great, but at what cost? is it worth the resources necessary? If it is *really* that important, perhaps it would make more sense to design and build a dedicated fire support platform from the ground up instead of using BBs from over 50 years ago.

Jeff Heidman

[Maximus]

Well the whole idea of the "Atlantic Wall", "Maginot Line", "Seigfried Line", "Great Wall of China" are all out-dated concepts when you can fly over them.

Fortress Europe couldn't hold back the swarms of B-17s from 1943-1945.

------------------
"Live by the sword, live a good LOOONG life!"-Minsc, BGII

"Boo points, I punch."--Minsc, BGII

[Major Tom]

The main reason that there are no Iowa Class BB's on the ocean floor, is, that after 1941 NO Allied Battleship or Battle Cruiser was sunk, and these ships were completed after and during 1943. They were no longer prime targets in the war, Aircraft Carriers were.

The North Carolina and South Dakota Class Battleships carry a similar armour system as the Iowa Class. The Iowa may be larger, but, most of that space was taken up by increasing its speed (33 Kts from 28 Kts). Their protection isn't trivial, but, has been compromised on other vessels.

There are no invincible ships or defensive systems.

All that any nation has to do is to plant a 500-1000 Kg bomb on one of these ships. The technology to effectively do this exists, and has existed for over 70 years.

[Wesy]

Hi Major Tom,

All weapons platforms have vulnerabilities. I would argue that the IOWA class BBs are probably as close as you will get to "unsinkable" in the USN. Sure a lucky hit, faulty damage control, being overwhelmed can all result in a ship that sinks. The BB is NOT to designed to operate in a vacuum. The BB is supposed to operate with other fleet elements for AA, and ASW.

This is taken from the Combined Fleet Website: http://www.combinedfleet.com

"...The Kirishima, a survivor of the battle two nights before, along with heavy cruisers Atago and Takao, formed the bulk of the force. In the resulting melee, South Dakota had a bad go of it, repeatedly losing power due to faulty electrical equipment, and was unable to contribute much to the battle. Taken under fire by Kirishima and practically every ship in the Japanese main body, her superstructure was riddled and her radar disabled. However, her watertight integrity was never damaged a whit..."

Like any other vessel that looses its sensors and electrical power...your in a world of hurt http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif. You have to remember that these ships were designed to withstand some serious punishment...South Dakota and Iowa were some of the baddest bb's around...

Here are the spec's for an IOWA CLASS

Belt 12.2"
Bheads 11"
Turret Face 19.7"
Barbettes 17.3"
Conning Tower 17.5

All armor is not created equal...

Again quoting from the Combined Fleet Website... http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

GENERAL COMMENTS: This was the most complex category in terms of trying to quantify and simplify a rating. After all, each of these vessels was designed to operate in a different anticipated threat environment than the others. Bismarck, for instance, was designed for combat in the North Atlantic. Her designers anticipated weather and visibility conditions such as had prevailed at Jutland in WWI. As a result, she was optimized for short-range, flat-trajectory combats. Her armor scheme reflects this, with an armor layout that makes it fantastically difficult to put a shell into her vitals at short range, but which is vulnerable to long-range fire, and which reduces the total amount of protected volume in the vessel by carrying her armor deck lower in the ship than her contemporaries. By the same token, Yamato was simply built to stand up to and utterly outclass any conceivable American or British opponent by sheer weight of gunfire, and elephant-like armor. As such, hers is a sort of 'brute force' approach to protection. Her armor layout isn't the most efficient, but she has a lot of armor, so it doesn't really matter. American and French battleships were designed to do less with more, with the South Dakota, for instance, being perhaps the best protected warship, pound for pound, ever built. One reason the Americans in particular came out with such good designs is that they could afford to. America poured tons of money into making the propulsion plants of their vessels more efficient, meaning that the resulting ships were relatively smaller and armor box correspondingly small. This, in turn, led to the ability to use the armor more heavily in the protected region. By the same token, American BBs, alone of contemporary battleship designs, had hull plating and interior works which were constructed entirely of Special Treatment Steel (STS), a very tough light armor steel, whereas contemporary designs usually reserved such steels for important splinter-proofing locales. The United States alone was capabe of affording such extravagances.

Also never forget the power of damage control the USN exceled at this during WWII...

Just my 0.02 http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

------------------
"Lack of weapons is no excuse for defeat"
- Lt. General Renya Mutaguchi, Commanding General, Japanese Fifteenth Army, 1944-1945

[Mark IV]

Jeff: I certainly wouldn't oppose weapons development. What do we use in the mean time? We have a perfectly serviceable weapons systems with no replacement in sight and I cannot imagine throwing it away. It costs very little (in the context of USN) to keep them on hand.

Battleships are mostly about floating and shooting and these concepts are not obsolete. Iowa-class ships do them both extremely well. They have been retro-fitted in major and minor ways many times over the years. Each turret has its own radar. RPVs provide spotting. The 16"ers are supposed to be able to hold a group 125m deep by 35m wide.

They can create 50,000+ sq. ft. of Visitor Parking with each salvo, within 25-30 miles of shore. With 11" sabots they can reach 100 miles. There is little a Tomahawk or a 5" gun can offer in these categories (but they have those, too).

Major Tom: Absolutely no one has claimed that battleships are "invincible", nor are they a universal problem-solver. Just like in ground warfare, they are one element of a combined-arms threat. They are one more tool in the box; I would not throw away my hammer because I am looking into beginning development of a nail-gun.

The South Dakota took 26 hits from 5.5" to 14" guns at Guadalcanal, btw.

[Polar]

I think the point here is this...

Carriers can fullfill the role of a BB, regardless of the job, and the rounds used.

As it is, the BBs duties are fully redundant. We are obligated to maintain the Carrier fleet that we currently have, so cost to upkeep arguments are pointless. We HAVE to have Carriers... so that cost is there regardless of whether the BB is online or not.

So it is not the lessor cost of the BB... unless you are planning on taking a Carrier off line.

One more point that has been touched on here that really hasn't been addressed... that is that the shore bombardment ability of the BB is far outweighed by the real estate that the Carrier commands.

There was a time that the common thought was that Carriers needed Battleships, and Battleships needed Carriers. But technology has reached a point where that dependancy is now only one way. The Battleship NEEDS a Carrier.. but the Carrier does not need a Battleship.

The real argument that the Pro-Battleship people should be making is the Pros of Destroyers-vs-Battleships. My guess is that the primary BB duties in fleet protection have now made it a wildly inefficient tool. There is no way to create a Battleship that can cover all the ground that it's cost-couterpart of Destroyers can. Even if it was possible to create one, you essentially reduce the point of failure to one.

For example: Lets say for arguments sake that it costs the same to maintain 4 Destroyers as it does one Iowa Class battleship. And lets say that that Iowa can somehow cover the same milage as the Destroyers... it still only takes one lucky missile to take away all the BBs ability (read: sink) but it would take five to totally remove the DDs.

Not a valid example, I know... since you can't outfit a BB to cover the ground of the DDs. But you get the point.

In all it's roles, the Battleship winds up being redundant or inefficient.

I love 'em too... but their day is over.

Joe

------------------
"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

[This message has been edited by Polar (edited 01-08-2001).]

[Terence]

My 2 Cents on the Whole Thing, In Case Anyone Wants to Know:

I have no pretensions to expertise at weapons system analysis, and therefore cannot argue convincingly for or against operating Iowa Class battleships. I have some thoughts, though.

But I was following the situation in Kosovo and the Persian Gulf pretty closely over the last couple years when I worked as a reporter in the world section at ABCNews.com (please, please hold your scorn for reporters, I've heard it all before, and its really a topic for email or another thread)

And after listening to plenty of Pentagon briefings and talking a great deal to some very smart folks at the Army War College and RAND and Brookings, it certainly seems that putting a bomb or missile on target from the sky is no easy thing, especially when people are shooting at you.

Some damage assessments for _military targets_ from the latest dustup in Kosovo were terribly terribly low, and a famous GAO report on Desert Storm made it pretty clear that a lot of bombs were dropped for every one that made it to the target. Things have improved since then, but still -- people talk about pushbutton war but its not that simple.

So, if I was in charge of the US Navy, I would necessarily want to get rid of something that could destroy what it was shooting at with such ease as has been reported here on the board.

The question is -- does it have to be a battleship? I know people have cited some really interesting reasons to keep an Iowa class around, but the one that they keep returning to is the gunnery. Are there alternatives?

Also, in the future, the US armed forces are likely to be fighting a lot more Somalia-type conflicts than we are to be attacking across defended beaches. Concerns over collateral damage will be very high.

In situations like that maybe attacking with something that doesn't explode like a 16 inch shell is a good thing.


Finally, one thing that I kept reflecting on as I wrote my stories at ABC, was that in the current environment, brute force is an overrated weapon.

Just because the United States has a huge military, doesn't mean that we can make the Kim Jong Ils and Saddam Husseins and Slobodan Milosevics of the world do what we want.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:
Jeff: I certainly wouldn't oppose weapons development. What do we use in the mean time? We have a perfectly serviceable weapons systems with no replacement in sight and I cannot imagine throwing it away. It costs very little (in the context of USN) to keep them on hand.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is just it though, it does cost the USN a lot to keep them on hand, which is why the USN does not want to keep them on hand. Do you think they want to get rid of them just to mkae people like you mad?

They have a huge crew, and they are maintenance nightmares. Yes, they have been refitted many times, but in the end the ship is going on 60 years old. There is only so much you can do with it. It's like those F-14s and F-15s flying around. They might be great planes, but they have a finite life. You can extend that time, but it eventually gets prohibitively expensive.

Are carriers also expensive? Of course. But a carrier is an integral part of US force projection. A BB is not. It is a luxury, and it is a luxury that the USN has decided it cannot afford. It is an anchronism. It is a weapon from another time, and another place. The world has changed, and the benefits to be gotten from a BB are outweighted by the financial cost of maintaining the platform.

The BB is vulnerable to submarines, especially since its primary job involves it getting in extremely close to land. Anyone know how quiet a Chinese diesel attack sub is when it is parked on the bottom waiting for the Iowa to cruise on by?

All these other ancillary benefits are moot. A BB can hold a lot of fuel? Great, build a fuel ship that can hold as much at 1/100th the cost. A BB can fire a lot of Tomahawks? Great, build a CNG that can do the same at 1/5th the cost, or better yet comvert on Ohio to a SSGN configuration that can do even more, and do it while being virtually indetectable.

The only thing that the Iowa brings to the table is an outstanding ability to deliver large amounts of conventonal firepower to onshore targets not protected by terrain (NGFS is limited by the arc that they can loft shells). That's a nice asset, but is too limited for the proposed cost.

Ohh, I forgot the "true" reason that people want the Iowa's, the real "asset": they are neat. They are a humongous ship with really, really big guns. Wheeeeee!

Jeff Heidman

[Hilltopper]

Interesting thought, Terence. I think the BB can play a valid role, especially arty support. Since we're seeing more limited military engagements, nothing like floating an arty platform in. I'd rather have that and push a 105mm Howitzer up over a hill.

Also several have made note how expensive they are to maintain and that a nuke would finish them off. Well, in that perspective, why not do away with all modern weapon systems and just use sticks and rocks? Certainly all weapons systems, especially the very expensive, can be vaporized with nukes. So lets just go with rocks...there's plenty of 'em lying around! :)

Really the fact of the matter is we have no engineering expertise to build or properly maintain battleships like we did 60 years ago. I am betting it's a "lost art". That's really too bad, cause I think they have purpose--even today.

[paullus]

I certainly hope that the Iowas are not fully retired - just mothball them in case we need to use them again. Also, since the 1980 refit, it only takes approx. 800 crewmembers to do the job that 2500 took sixty years ago.

BB's can also operate in enclosed waterways (such as the Persian Gulf) that you really would not put an aircraft carrier in times of war (real war). BB's are also many times more survivable than current US warships. The blast that almost took out the USS Cole would have, at most, scratched the paint on an Iowa.

I for one would not put my faith in technology 100% (aircraft, missiles, etc). There are times when a battery of unstoppable artillery (in the case of a SAM threat) is necessary.

And although a Battleship is much less expensive than an aircraft carrier to operate, I can see how people would want to retire them. I can only hope that they mothball them in case we need that kind of platform again. History does have a way of repeating itself.

Remember, the golden age of the aircraft carrier spanned 24 months (1942 - 1944) and only 5 battles ever took place between US & Japanese aircraft carriers (direct confrontations). Just because the aircraft carrier is the primary weapon today, does not mean the same will hold true tomorrow.

[Mark IV]

I don't think BBs and ACs do the same job.

Yes, the AC has the bigger footprint- but with far less power. Airplanes miss, a lot. The more precisely they strike, the greater the risk to the manned delivery system.

The whole Navy isn't against the Iowas, either. They have debated this in a lot more depth than we have.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The only thing that the Iowa brings to the table is an outstanding ability to deliver large amounts of conventonal firepower to onshore targets not protected by terrain (NGFS is limited by the arc that they can loft shells).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that is sufficient, and so does the USMC, one of the big proponents of keeping them around. The most useful battleship role is now one of ground support.

[Major Tom]

The Prince of Wales, a King George V class Battleship, had thicker side armour (16") and as thick deck armour (11") and was sunk by conventional torpedoes and bombs. The Iowa isn't revolutionary. It is the last of a long line of battleships, which have certain weaknesses. Also, ANY design that is 60+ years old should be replaced. There is only so much you can do to upgrade a hull.

Assuming that your ships or navy is invincible will undobutedly result in a blooddy nose. These ships should be replaced by a more cost effective bombardment device. Having a 60 000t warship providing as effective amount of bombardment power as a 10 000t warship is rediculous. All that any modern bombardment vessel would need is ONE 16" turret. Radar tracking has negated the need for large battleships with multiple turrets to guarantee a hit.

No defensive system is flawless. It was proven in just about every engagement that "the bomber will always get through".

[I/O Error]

Have you actually SEEN the number of losses and sheer amount of WASTED (read: totally missed target) ordanance we've thrown away from WWII straight through to Kosovo?

You know it's a problem when a $1 Billion aircraft is shot down by a 1970's-era 57mm fixed AAA mount over Kosovo. That's just SAD.

Check the number of people we lost in training/combat/plain accidents from 1990-1992. Trust me. The number will shock you.

The bomber may get through, but only after pissing away thousands of lives and billions of dollars worth of equipment... http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/rolleyes.gif

------------------
Honor, Duty, Courage.

Valhalla awaits you, honorable warrior...

------------------------

"If you find yourself alone, riding through green fields with the sun on your face, do not be troubled, for you are in Elysium, and YOU ARE ALREADY DEAD!"

[Maximus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:
I would not throw away my hammer because I am looking into beginning development of a nail-gun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know man, nails themselves are becoming obsolete. My father has done several carpenter jobs in the last 2 years and he hasn't used nails in any of them, barring nailing sub-flooring. He uses Phillips screws and a cordless drill. Screws hold better. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

[scoop88]

After reading all these posts, I would say I/O Error is winning this one. He's supporting his case with (hopefully accuracte) facts and figures. All I'm hearing from the loyal opposition are opinions. ("battleships are 60 years old," "they're maintenance nightmares," "their day is over," etc., etc.) I respectfully suggest the opponents give us some facts, please, to support keeping the Iowa-class BBs in mothballs.

[Major Tom]

Oh, so armour strength numbers, comparisons at the ease of loss of as strong battleships in history, a history of teething problems of the Iowa class (ie turrets exploding), and that there are weapons capable of sinking these ships in large numbers around the world aren't really facts?

I agree that 16" guns are good supressive fire weapons. I just don't think that their platforms are viable any more.

Stating that a 1957 Flak gun can shoot down a modern $1 000 000 000 dollar fighter goes only to further my point that even with today's technology NOTHING is invincible. If a single burst of Flak can shoot down a supposed invisible aircraft, then a single spread of modern torpedos has as good, if not better chance in sinking a battleship from 1943. Even if it was guarded by the best ASW ships in the world.

[This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 01-08-2001).]

[Mark IV]

Major T, you have now twice set up and knocked down the same straw man.

No one is claiming that either Iowa-class battleships, nor the US Navy, nor any other weapon system, is unsinkable, invulnerable, or flawless.

The battleship is very difficult to sink. That is all.

As for the 60-year old hull... is it leaking? Breaking up? What leap forward in full-displacement hull technology has obsoleted it?

There are no 10000t warships with the "effective amount of bombardment" of the Wisconsin or any other Iowa-class. When there are, perhaps this will be a valid argument.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by I/O Error:
Have you actually SEEN the number of losses and sheer amount of WASTED (read: totally missed target) ordanance we've thrown away from WWII straight through to Kosovo?

You know it's a problem when a $1 Billion aircraft is shot down by a 1970's-era 57mm fixed AAA mount over Kosovo. That's just SAD.

Check the number of people we lost in training/combat/plain accidents from 1990-1992. Trust me. The number will shock you.

The bomber may get through, but only after pissing away thousands of lives and billions of dollars worth of equipment... http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/rolleyes.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is your point? In probably 90% of the cases in Kosovo where ordinance did not hit its target, it was a matter of the plane dropping the ordinance exactly where the pilot intendend but poor intelligence meant that the target was not where it was supposed to be.

Its not like an Iowa could have done the job any better. It can place its shells with great accuracy, but it still is not going ot hit anything if there is nothing there to hit.

Of course, in the vast majority of the examples you cite, a battleship couldn;t have hit any of those targets anyway!!

Your posts are getting borderline manic. No matter how good a BB is at shore bombardment, it is not a replacement for air power, and never will be. It was not in WW2, it certainly is not today.

Would an Iowa have somehow kept that F-117 from being shot down????

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:
As for the 60-year old hull... is it leaking? Breaking up? What leap forward in full-displacement hull technology has obsoleted it?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who said anything about the hull? We are talking about the rather large amount of equipment inside the hull that is 60 years old. It's not like they have torn everything out and replaced it with new stuff.

The ship is ancient. There comes a point where the cost to keep it afloat outweighs the benefit incurred. The Navy decided that point has been reached, and long since. hence it was mothballed. So far no-body has provided any reason to make me think they were wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

There are no 10000t warships with the "effective amount of bombardment" of the Wisconsin or any other Iowa-class. When there are, perhaps this will be a valid argument.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only if there is a need for that amount of bombardment that is greater than the need for whatever it is that the Navy is not getting because they are spending the resources on the ability to make really big bangs in very limited areas under extremely narrow circumstances.

Once again, the guys who are a little over enthralled with the big guns fail to address the critical point. It is not a question of whether that gun support is desirable. Of course it is. No-body has argued otherwise. It is a question of whether it is *more* desirable than something else. The Navy has a fixed yearly budget for crews and maintenance.

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by scoop88:
After reading all these posts, I would say I/O Error is winning this one. He's supporting his case with (hopefully accuracte) facts and figures. All I'm hearing from the loyal opposition are opinions. ("battleships are 60 years old," "they're maintenance nightmares," "their day is over," etc., etc.) I respectfully suggest the opponents give us some facts, please, to support keeping the Iowa-class BBs in mothballs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Battleships are 60 years old" is not a fact?

I respectfully suggest that if you cannot actually provide any input yourself, your contributions as an umpire are not really necessary.

Jeff Heidman

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 01-08-2001).]

[Terence]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

No matter how good a BB is at shore bombardment, it is not a replacement for air power, and never will be. It was not in WW2, it certainly is not today.


Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Jeff. I'm not sure that people were saying it was, just that the Iowa could be a useful component of the US forces because of its capabilities, fuel storage, gunnery, machine shops, etc.

As I said earlier, Im not qualfied to analyze the weapons system, but one of the things that would make makes me hesitate if the decision were mine is this:

If you look at the kinds of conflicts we are fighting now and the type of fighting we'll have to do in the future, will there be a need for the kind of fire that the Iowa class can deliver?

Would we need precise 16 inch gunnery? Maybe.

But do we need the Iowa to deliver it?

Maybe the need to deliver that kind of mayhem is not synonymous with maintaining the Iowa.

Maybe we could do it some other way. Im thinking of the SLAM perhaps, or the GBU-15/BLU-109 or maybe one of the AGM-86s. I know one of those AGM-86 conversions can contain a 3000 pound warhead.

These systems are cheaper than a battleship and don't contain 800 sailors who can drown if the ship sinks.

[TargetDrone]

Hmm.. I am not very familiar with the tech details (I am even not an American... but I still like these behemoths of war) but I guess the defensive side always gains an advantage... (see the example with the 57mm flak...)..
Sure, a BB can't survive long without a whole fleet protecting it... but don't tell me that carriers do.... on the other hand, a carriers main weapons are planes (which it has stocked only in limited amounts). Now, as shown above, plains (even invisible ones http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/biggrin.gif) can be shot down rather easily... leaving the Carrier rather toothless... and I think that American public would revolt if the navy starts to send in waves after waves into an SAM cluttered area just to hit a vital target.... and every wannabe dictator could afford a decent AA-system. Maybe even buying it of America http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/biggrin.gif

on the other hand, we have a battleship... it too needs the protection of a small armada... but it relies on 16" arties as its prime weapon... now... I am not sure, but I doubt that a 16" shell in transit can be intercepted at all... and if this can really be done... I doubt that anyone will waste a tear for the poor shell...
So, my guess is that BBs are more effective when it comes to deliver destruction to a specific target that is well defended... Airplanes are just too fragile (and expensive in both resources and live costs).

Another nice effect of the battleship has already been addressed quite often... it is simply a psychological weapon.... I would feel much more uncomfortable when being shelled at with this nasty big unstoppable (?) arty than being attacked by airplanes when I have a good chance of bringing them down before they can deliver their ordnance...

well, just my 10 Groschen here (sorry, here in Austria we don't have Cents yet http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/tongue.gif )

-- TargetDrone


p.s.: Anybody can tell me where i can get decent info on the phalanx systems and other ways to counter missiles and Cruise Missiles?

[Jeff Heidman]

Drone, you are forgetting one teeny little point:

A battleship can *only* hit targets that are within reach of those 16" guns, and that is a very limited reach indeed.

Furthermore, the BB can only hit those targets when there is complete air superiority, since it cannot defend itself from air attack, so it will need a CVN escort anyway.

Finally, the BB must sail into often restricted waters to even reach the 30 miles in or so that it can as is, making it extremely vulnerable to submarines and land-launched cruise missiles.

All that being said, Bush is talking about increasing the military budget by some $20 billion. If that actually happens, it might bear some thinking about keeping one of these floating, but not at the expense of a new Navy attack plane and a new Navy fighter, both of which are needed desperately after the A-12 fiasco.

Jeff Heidman

[wwb_99]

I once worked in a Navy office where they looked at new weapons systems. One guy decorated his office with 5" shells that had been hit by an experimental version of the Phlanax(SP?) point defense system. If they can catch 5" shells, they damn sure can catch 16" shells. Now weather or not that will do any good is subject to debate.

WWB

------------------
Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[kverdon]

Howdy,

I'll throw my 2 cents into this discussion. In my collage days I did a paper on the design and reactivation of these ships. I found out a few interresting things.

On the Firepower of an Aircraft Carrier vrs a battleship: An Iowa class BB CAN deliver a higher volume of fire on a target per time than can an aircraft carrier. If you wish references to this I could did up my paper and give you the numbers.

On their protection: Yes, it is true that the Iowa's only had a 12" belt of armor but it was STS Steel and sloped. The Belt armor was actually an internal armor belt that angled in at, I think, 19 degrees from the verticle. Now I don't think I have to educate anyone HERE on the efficacy of angling the armor http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif. The Naval Institutue Press book on the Iowas lists the EFFECTIVE vertical protection of the Iowas at 18". The turrets are protected by about 19" and the Control tower about 18".

Most German and Japaese designs had vertical or almost Vertical horizontal armor. Comparing the Iowa to the Bizmark or Yamato is like comparing a Panther to a Tiger (mkVI). The analogy is almost perfect. Compared to the Yamato for example, the Iowas had guns of a smaller size (16" vrs 18") but with a longer caliber (50 vrs 45. Thus the Iowa's carrier a smaller main gun but had equal or superior penetration and a higher ROF. The Iowas carried a thiner belt armor but it was sloped and the Iowas were faster.
All in all, the Iowas were probably the best balanced Battleships ever built. The problems with them now are they are tough to justify having arround. Yes, they can deliver devistating firepower and absorb mucho damage but there currently not many applications you can use that type of firepower on, it tends to creat lots of collateral damage http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif. I really wish we could keep one arround as it, as Oddball would say, it "can give you a definate edge" when you need it.

KEvin

[Major Tom]

Now, we all throw some credible stuff at why they should or shouldn't retire these battleships. For whatever reason the USN has decided to mothball them, possibly scrap them. Maybe keeping one in deep reserve for whenever a major amphibious landing needs support might be a good idea, but, keeping it in full working order, when the possibility of a major amphibious landing is not in the near future is not economically feasible.

Possibly the 'Big Gun' will come back into play when technology wars become too expensive to wage. As it is now, the mission that these ships are capable of could be fulfilled by a much more inexpensive, and probably better protected (ie. using evasion instead of armour) monitor.

Personally, I am very uninterested in modern warfare and would love to see these big warships come back into play, but, the necessity of having something this large to supply fire support within 30 KM of the coast is a very limited mission for such a unit.

[I/O Error]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:
Your posts are getting borderline manic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, Jeff? If you want to make this personal, you are going to "lose" this debate. Personal statements have nothing to do with this, so kindly take a deep breathe and just chill out.

Sheesh man... http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/biggrin.gif

Anyway, moving along: The modern Battleship is much cheaper than a carrier, and is slightly less vulnerable.

The USN has been so afraid for DECADES of the threat of submarine warfare against our carriers that we have the FINEST ASW force in the world. The old diesel boats used by the Chinese (going back to a previously made post by somebody) are, fortunately, very outdated.

Are they quiet? For a few hours on batteries, yes. But it takes them about half a day to recharge that loss, and we can hear their diesel engines about a hundred nautical miles away on a good day. (Not an exaggeration, they have VERY old equipment)

Also, the fire control computers and the basic torpedoes they fire are, in most cases, over 30 years old. A few old-model Kilos have shown up in the People's Liberation Army Navy's fleet, but precious few. Not to mention, we watch those things like HAWKS.

(Anyone else find the "Army Navy" thing a bit of a mouthful? Ah well, guess they didn't want a seperate branch for the Navy.)


So, if the battleship is vulnerable to attack, the carrier is even MORE so. Aluminum vs. over ten inches of steel IS a real difference, and the battleship is DESIGNED to be hit, with a hyper-abundance of airtight compartments and system redundancy.

So, that's it for torpedoes. Than there's aircraft and missiles.

Four words: Aegis Cruisers and CIWS


So, on to the role that the battleship can perform that nobody else can:

We have established that the sheer power is unbeatable, so I assume you folks need more reasons.

1.) More accurate (and cheaper) than bombs and missiles. Despite all the hoopla, Tomahawk missiles are not all that smart. Case in point: a short time after the war, we fired a retaliation attack of cruise missiles onto Baghdad, so they knew not to light up our planes with radar again.

(Fortunately, the falcon driver who got painted had a HARM, so he got away, but we wanted to be SURE the message got through)

Three of the missiles were lost midway to the target. We found out from the Iraqi News Agency that they had accidentally crashed into a skyscraper.

They were 50 miles from their target in Baghdad. A CIVILIAN building got in the way, and they got plowed right in. Oopsie.

So, then there's aircraft. The fact is, pilot training is strenuous and VERY expensive. The Air Force is found of saying that after a decade of flying, they have a good pilot. So we REALLY don't want to PISS AWAY THE LIVES OF OUR GUYS.

Pilots cost MONEY. Bombs/missiles cost MONEY. BB shells are DAMN cheap in comparison, and so are the operating, maintenance, and personnal costs.

800 men is not a huge expenditure for the USN. A US Carrier carries over 3000. Hmmmm?

BB shells are massively powerful. The idea of collateral damage was brought up, as WELL IT SHOULD BE. True, nobody REALLY wants to have a 16" shell land on some poor civvie's head.

However, most military installations are NOT build in highly built up areas. Security, land costs, and disguise are only a few reasons for that. So, most targets that an airplane could engage "safely" (read: no dead ICs) could be safely engaged by a battleship, with a MUCH higher safety rating and chance of total destruction.

I mean, did you guys read my earlier posts about what exactly we have to take out heavily fortified ground targets? Right now, it's just aircraft. And we are NOT willing to absorb the kind of losses such a deep strike mission would entail.

A few SA-13 or better sites and a couple of old AAA batteries = a lot of letters for the squadron commander to write home. "Dear Mrs. Smith, I regret to inform you that..."

C'mon. We can do better than that. The battleship gives us better than 100 miles range, with NO chance of interception and the best gunnery rating ever in the history of warfare.

I mean, the Iowa-class BBs were the first units to be given the Predator unmanned drones for targeting. Not only does that ENSURE their accuracy, BUT IT ALSO ALLOWS THEM REAL-TIME OBSERVATION OF THE TARGET. In other words, better intelligence than EVER. Our pilots do not have time to see a changing situation on the ground, so all a tank battalion has to do is move a few hundred yards away and the bombers WILL miss.

BTW: Intercepted communique from Iraqi Brigade commander, 1991.

"For the last three months, the American air force has bombed my command nonstop. We managed to fool their bombers, and I have lost less than a half-dozen tanks, with no crews lost. Yesterday the United States 1st Cavalry engaged us. My entire command is lost, we have no choice but to fall back"

What does this mean? Yes, "the bomber will always get through" he just won't do much good.

You think the Kosovo campaign did anything? http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/biggrin.gif Hit a few bridges, and that's about it. It was the sanctions that did it, not our Air Force!

So, the battleship offers better reliability, better power, incredible range, lowered cost, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseum.

(Incidentally, the combat range of a modern fighter, fully loaded with ordanance, is on average about 200-300 miles, round trip. Not far, is it? Compare that to a one way range of over a HUNDRED MILES for a 16" shell.)

End result? We DON'T have a good or even acceptable) replacement for the battleship, and there is STILL a need for them.

The whole world KNOWS how "effective" simple air power can be. Not very.

The whole world KNOWS how effective 16" artillery shells can be. *shudder*

Few live to tell about such an experience. The Battleship is similar to the B-52. Aging, but with a role that can NOT be replaced.

(I mean, do YOU have a replacement in mind for a bomber than can destroy every living thing in an area 2.5 miles long and over a mile wide?)

The point of a military (in the modern sense) is NOT to kill the enemy, but better yet to scare him so he NEVER attacks. The Battleship did, does, and could continue to do EXACTLY that. Ever seen the records for the sheer amount of resources the Russians planned to throw into taking out any Atlantic-based Carrier and Battleship task groups if a European War broke out? The numbers are staggering, especially the figures that say they were risking over 2/3rds their entire fleet of Backfire (do I have that name right? oops) bombers and in most cases AIR TANKERS WERE NOT TO BE PROVIDED. The Russians didn't CARE if the bombers came back, the targets were too important!!

If THAT'S not deterrance, what IS?!

The Battleship is needed. Bring it back.

------------------
Honor, Duty, Courage.

Valhalla awaits you, honorable warrior...

------------------------

"If you find yourself alone, riding through green fields with the sun on your face, do not be troubled, for you are in Elysium, and YOU ARE ALREADY DEAD!"

[Forever Babra]

http://www.bb62museum.org/images/8406362.jpg

8 Feb, 1984. USS New Jersey fired almost 300 rounds of 16" at Druze and Syrian positions in the Beqa'a. Syria calls for cease fire.

Kick ass and take names

[I/O Error]

Hu-RRAH!!

I'm telling ya man, they're the next best thing to the Wrath of God.

(That's just fun to type. Wrath of God, Wrath o... Okay, I'm shutting up now, stop staring at me like that! http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/tongue.gif)

[Jeff Heidman]

IO, this is getting old.

You continue to refuse to address the points made.

The 16" gun does NOT have a 100 mile range. Please quote me a source that makes that claim.

You harp on and on about how crappy airpower is, but every single failing you mention is shared by the BB. A 16" shell cannot see its target any better than a 1000lb bomb can.

The airpower argument is a non-starter. Every example you went on about is irrelevant to this discussion. Could the Iowa have hit those targets you claim were missed by Tomahawks? No? Then what is your point? Could the addition of a few BBs have made a difference in Kosovo? No? Then why bring it up? Red Herring?

Carriers are not as vulnerable as a BB because a carrier does not need to get within a few miles of the shoreline to launch a strike. They can stay out at sea, undetected.

A diesel sub is absolutely quieit (even an old one) when it is not moving. It can run on battery for hours and hours at very slow speeds, and they do not have to go fast because they are cheap and the Chinese have a lot of them. They are old and low tech, but so is an AK-47. Their torpedoes might be junk, but that does not mean the Iowa is going to dodge them once they are fired. To attack a carrier, an enemy sub has to go out into the ocean and find it, which it will never succeed at. To attack a BB, it just has to sit and wait, since you know where it is going to go.


Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BTW: Intercepted communique from Iraqi Brigade commander, 1991.

"For the last three months, the American air force has bombed my command nonstop. We managed to fool their bombers, and I have lost less than a half-dozen tanks, with no crews lost. Yesterday the United States 1st Cavalry engaged us. My entire command is lost, we have no choice but to fall back"
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And gosh, he doesn't mention being attacked by any battleships, so what is the relevance to this discussion?

The difficulty tactical airpower has in destroying hidden enemy forces is well known. Your bringing up a single example of that and then making the rather dizzying leap to the conclusion that we should build battleships is a bit suspect, to say the very least.

Jeff Heidman

[Xavier]

I just read all the posts... I'm not an expert in modern weaponry but I think battleships are may be not a good answer for modern military crisis. Most of you are arguing about the BB firepower and it's invincibility. Yes, BB are very powerful but I think occidental armies are now more looking for effective weapon in precision. Because of public opinion, you have to practise now the (in)famous chirurgical warfare. A 14' shell is not very chirugical-like. The risk of civilian, non military casualties is too big. So, in a lot of today's crisis, BB are useless (think to the Iowa in Lebanon in the 80's)...

Well, my english is really awful, I just hope my opinion is enough clear http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif

[Slapdragon]

One of the reasons for the Iowa being mothballed is that they are really expensive to run, and no matter how impressive a 16inch gun is, it is not as flexible as the new Mod 4 5 inchers which can fire 30 rounds a minute and hit with 10 meters of initial aiming point at 35 kilometeres, or 20 meters at 160 kilometers (that is not a misprint, the Mod 4 has a range of 160 kilometers to the 16inchers range of 32 kilometers). The new DD21, if they ever get off the design board, will need 90 crew people, will carry more missiles than the Iowa, will be much quieter (a submariner friend of mine told me the Iowa was so loud that Russian subs could use it to hide inside of US fleets undetected) will be stealthy (the Iowa has 3 times the cross section of even the Nimitz, the next brightest thing in the fleet). Only in armor protection do they fall down.

[Marlow]

Arguments in support of BBs from people who know more on the subject than anyone on this board:

http://www.usnfsa.com/

[Xavier]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Forever Babra:

8 Feb, 1984. USS New Jersey fired almost 300 rounds of 16" at Druze and Syrian positions in the Beqa'a. Syria calls for cease fire.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Druze? Syrian? in 1984,the real danger for the US (and french) expedionary forces were certainly not the Druze or the Syrian but the Hezbollah fanatics. These fanatics managed to fully destroy two building occupied by US and french soldiers by suicidal attack in Beyruth...

[Mirage2k]

I/O Error,

I think you're still missing the point that a few others have brought up. Yes, the BB is a great shore bombardment platform, and can take some punishment, but the Navy just isn't prepared to spend the money needed to maintain even one ship. The maintenance costs of equipment tend to increase exponentially as the equipment ages (a huge problem that defense planners will have in the next few years as they try to balance the maintenance of old equipment with the procurement of new systems). And right now there just aren't enough reasons to justify having them around.

1. The likelyhood of a large-scale amphibious invasion in the next decade is fairly low. There's always a chance, of course, which is why I would support keeping a BB in port, but the probability isn't large enough to justify sending any out into the fleet.

2. As someone previously mentioned, you have to get fairly close to shore to use the power of those 16" guns, leaving the BB vulnerable to subs and GLCMs. Sure, Aegis-equipped cruisers and destroyers can help out there, but if a BB needs a battle group to protect it, why not just stick with an aircraft carrier?

3. Bombs miss, of course, and you present the enemy with a shot at skilled pilots, but currently air power seems sufficient to fulfill almost any conceivable interdiction mission. Aircraft are more surgical in nature, and "collateral damage" is the current buzzword in the White House. 16" guns are far from surgical. We can debate the pros and cons of air-delivered weapons for eternity, but I personally don't think that a BB accompanied by a full battle group is any less vulnerable than an air strike accompanied by high cover and SEAD aircraft. By the way, are the Predator aircraft you mentioned invulnerable or something? IIRC, they fly pretty slow, and could probably be downed fairly easily.

Also, you wanted us to compare the 100 mile range of the guns versus the 200-300 mile range of the aircraft (that ignores mid-air refueling and the heavy bomber fleet, of course)? Uh...I think the aircraft win that one, buddy.

-Andrew

------------------
"No, it's not that kind of relationship. We're just friends. We are together all the time, but I never touch her porcelain skin, her soft, red lips, like rose petals from the emperor's bathwater! Bathwater, I tell you, bathwateeeeeeer!"

[I/O Error]

Jeff, you don't HAVE to continue reading this if you find it disagreeable... http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/biggrin.gif

C'mon man, I honestly think you're starting to take this personally... http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif (Wait, I'm not kidding, wink shouldn't be there.)

Anyway, on to the rebuttal: (I love doing this...)

1.) http://usnfsa.com/articles/techdata/td2.htm

Now then, read the part about the "16/11-Inch Long Range GPS Concept with Sabot "

Unfortunately, I could not readily find a site with better information, but I think you will find that that source blows your argument out of the water. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/biggrin.gif

2.) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A 16" shell cannot see its target any better than a 1000lb bomb can. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Au contraire! Remember my post about the Predator unmanned drone? Those are active, and they allow REAL-TIME view of the target, far superior to anything, even to spy satellites. (due to the fact you have to WAIT for a spy sat)

3.) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Could the Iowa have hit those targets you claim were missed by Tomahawks? No? Then what is your point? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Let me phrase my point better, and answer your latter question about the Iraqi commander's quote. I forgot to say, his unit was in Kuwait, well within range of a battleship's guns for over 3 months.

4.) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Carriers are not as vulnerable as a BB because a carrier does not need to get within a few miles of the shoreline to launch a strike. They can stay out at sea, undetected.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
UNDETECTED?! Wow... my friend, the whole world, from Andorra to Zimbabwe, knows the exact movements of our carrier groups.

Besides, it is not that difficult to "prepare" a coastline for bombardment. If it was, why has it never been a problem for any navy in history? First targets to be hit would be airfields stationed directly on the coast, and other high-risk dangers. You don't have to get right up to the coast for that, you standoff at a range of a 100 miles, as previously posted... http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif Only THEN do you move in, while under close support from airpower, submarines, and ASW forces. (standard practice, no need to revise tactics here)

5.) About the subs. Come now. You can't just IGNORE my previous posts/points in a debate! http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif I said already, we can HEAR the chinese diesel subs when they recharge. You said yourself, they do NOT move quickly after they recharge, so we can tell pretty exactly where they are. Not to mention, they are using old rusting Russian hulls with poor (what's the WATER term for aerodynamics? Damn, I can't remember) AND they do not have as good sound control.

Any subs in the area would be WELL pacified before a carrier and/or battleship group moved in. (Again, standard practice. The USN typically maintains a 100 mile "No Man's Land" around it's carriers. Not much gets in. If a whale FARTS, we KNOW about it)

6.) Yes, even an old sub could theoretically damage/destroy a battleship. The trick is GETTING there. (see above)

7.) The last point you make is the Iraqi commander. Answered above.

Bring it on man... http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif


------------------
Honor, Duty, Courage.

Valhalla awaits you, honorable warrior...

------------------------

"If you find yourself alone, riding through green fields with the sun on your face, do not be troubled, for you are in Elysium, and YOU ARE ALREADY DEAD!"

[kverdon]

Xavier,

BB's useless in Lebanon in the 80? Hold on a second. You may recall that we sent an Airstrike to take out some Syrian Arty and lost a A-6 and an A-7 to SAMs/AAA. Very bad PR and nice PR for the baddies showing off the wreckage plus we had to negotiate the return of a wounded aviator. Sooo, They send over BB-62 to pay the Syrians a visit. The Jersey shelled those Arty positions into rubble. The Palastinians and the Syrians HATED the Jersey becase of the firepower she could drop on them and they couldn't do ANYTHING about it but move further inland. Later there was a meeting of Syrian commanders who put together a meeting in a Underground Concrete Bunker in range of the New Jersey. They thought themselves pretty safe. They ran the Jersey right up to the shore and let fly. Unfortunately the Syrian's hadn't counted on the fact that a 16" round from the Iowas' can penetrate 27 FEET of reinforced concrete. BOOM! Meeting's adjourned http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif. The only wreckage they got to show off was the target!

Now BB's may not be so useful now and certainly can't replace the Aircraft Carrier but the Jersey DID do the Job in Lebanon. Same was true in Vietname. A friend of mine had a Platoon Sgt who was in Vietnam while the Jersey was there. His Platoon was pinned down by group of VC up on a ridge. He called for fire support and got the Jersey. When he called for fire they hesitated as it was "Danger Close" for the 16". He didn't care at that point as if SOMETHING didn't happen they were toast. The Jersey opened fire and after what he described as a visit to Hell with the explosions and the fire arround him. The VC were gone. So was the ridge!!

P.S. The hundred mile range comes from an experimental rocket assisted 8" saboted shell that was to be fired from the 16" guns of the Iowas. Don't know if it ever got off the drawing board though. The normal range of the Iowa's 16"ers is 27 miles.

P.P.S.
It had to be the secret wet dream of every modern captain of an Iowa to get a Kirov in 16" gun range. "Engage Target Main Battery" "JAM THIS" BOOM!! :)
Kevin


[This message has been edited by kverdon (edited 01-08-2001).]

[This message has been edited by kverdon (edited 01-08-2001).]

[Major Tom]

Unfortunately, special interest groups like The "USNFSA" tend only to really focus on fulfilling their mission statement, without looking at other factors. This is true of practically all special interest groups.

The USN Posesses some rapid fire 8" guns on some of their destroyers. Plus the 5" guns, fired rapidly, can supply a lot of cover.

There was a British study done at the end of the war questioning wether high volume of small calibur weapons or a lower volume of high calibur weapons proved to be an effective means in dislodging an enemy from a postition. The Higher volume appeared to be more effective, as, the VOLUME of bangs proved to be more unnerving than the LOUDNESS or crator. A few 16" hits may be devestating, but, they aren't as effective as multiple numbers of smaller calibur shots.

Carriers are more expensive, and the loss of one will be very devestating to the USN. However, their roles are much more versitile and can adapt better to changing circumstances. The most modern engagement of surface vessels within a reasonable threat would be the Falklands war. No other modern engagement was as evenly matched. The British had the most up to date aircraft, missiles and tracking systems, yet, suffered severe naval losses to Argentenian aircraft (albiet without loss of a single aircraft and at the cost of several Argentenian A/C).

If a ship ventures in close to land they are further increasing their risk. One example is of the HMS London, which was severely damaged by Communist Chinese coastal artillery. The HMS London was a 1930's Heavy Cruiser, heavily modernized in 1939. It's hull was holed many times by 5" coastal guns, and was at a risk of sinking if it did not evacuate itself. Gun armed ships have to get close to land if they are going to be effective bombarders. When they are on the coast, they are sitting ducks. They aren't moving and cannot be very manuverable if they actually get moving due to their proximity to shallow waters.

[I/O Error]

Xavier: Exactly, but then the only guys conventional forces of ANY kind could hit were the Druze and Syrians. The Hezbollah are just ordinary joes for the most part, no way to target them directly.

So we did the next best thing.

Mirage2k: Good points, I give you that.

1.) Yes, of course. Always a CHANCE, so keeping the sucker mothballed in drydock is a bad idea, yes? We agree? At least have one READY in port, right?

2.) Read my link on 100 mile range... http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/biggrin.gif

3-A.) According to military statistics on hits-on-target, the DoD agrees that BB guns are actually MORE "surgical". (better chance of accuracy)

3-B.) The predator aircraft has several advantages: One, low speed, so most automated radars will discard it. Two, it's designed to be at least semi-stealthy, and has no heat emissions. Three, it is painted in that "funky" new paint scheme the air force made to make it damn near invisible to the eye. Four, it flys at over 5'000 feet. (I say 5k because although I THINK it can go considerably higher, 5k is the only altitude I am SURE of. Best to admit that up front, right?)

3-C.) No, my point on the range thing is this: 100 miles one-way equals 200 miles round trip. You see what I mean? I'm saying the ranges are not all that different. Only a slight advantage to the zoomies...

Okay, hope that clears some stuff up! http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

[I/O Error]

Major Tom: The 100 mile max range of the BB makes the HMS London scenario unlikely at best. Even the "normal" range of 32 miles if well outside the range of all but the best artillery, and we have MUCH better counterbattery radar than the PLA does.

[Forever Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kverdon:
Xavier,
They thought themselves pretty safe...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Among the killed was the General commanding Syrian forces in Lebanon. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/biggrin.gif I'm not a real big fan of American gunboat diplomacy, but if you're gonna practice it, ya better make sure you've got a gunboat!

[Mark IV]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:
The 16" gun does NOT have a 100 mile range. Please quote me a source that makes that claim.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>16/11-Inch Long Range GPS Concept with Sabot

The concept was outlined on a briefing slide dated 17 April 1991 and was based upon using shell bodies from the Army’s old 280mm Atomic Cannon from the late 1950’s. The launch weight of the projectile, with sabot, was to be about 650 pounds, with a projectile weight of about 525 pounds. The payload is about 175 to 200 pounds and would consist initially of 248 M46 submunitions (small grenades). The projectile would have terminal guidance using the Global Positioning Finding System (GPS). With a range of 100 nautical miles, this projectile meets all required needs of the Marine Corps for high volume, high explosive ammunition, and greatly exceeds the objective range of 63 miles.

Weighing 500 pounds, this projectile will deliver about 10 times the ordnance of the proposed Extended Range Guided Munitions (ERGM) 5-inch projectile. Since it is larger, it will have about 1/3 the flight time of the 5-inch projectile.

This projectile is relatively inexpensive with a projected cost of about $50,000 per projectile (including powder). At this cost, coupled with it’s range and lethality, this projectile is a much less expensive alternative to Harpoon, ATACMS and MLRS land attack missiles that are currently being proposed for use on ships.

Though only a conceptual design, this projectile demonstrates the capability of the 16-inch gun to exceed the capabilities of the current alternatives (missiles).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://usnfsa.com/articles/techdata/td2.htm

You harp on and on about how crappy airpower is, but every single failing you mention is shared by the BB. A 16" shell cannot see its target any better than a 1000lb bomb can.

I haven't seen many claims that airpower is "crappy", only that it has its limits, and that its capabilities are sometimes overestimated.

First, not even the Navy is suggesting that aircraft carriers replace battleships for naval surface weapon support; the Extended Range Guided Munitions (ERGM) program is designed to provide NSWS with 5" guns. The advanced gun system (AGS) is the long-term solution, using 6.1" guns. These are all gun systems and thus subject to the same limitations of the already existing 16" guns.

Second, there are many ways to acquire a target without seeing it, but cannon shells fly in any weather.

Tomahawks and 16" guns do not replace one another. Just as we concede that 16 inchers are not suitable for precision strikes hundreds of miles inland, it should be acknowledged that cruise missiles are not suitable for suppressing or destroying large enemy formations. Of course, battleships can carry both...

"The Navy estimates that reactivating both Iowa and Wisconsin would cost $430
million. They can both be extensively modernized for about $500 million. This gives us two capital
ships for the cost of a single DDG-51 destroyer."

http://usnfsa.com/articles/repliestonavyfInal0073.pdf

[I/O Error]

Oh yes, that reminds me! I think a LOT of people are starting to think I think we don't NEED carriers, Tomahawks, aircraft, et cetera.


Good LORD!!! Man, we need EVERY tool in the toolbox!! I'm just a simple groundpounder type, but even I can appreciate the unique usefulness of EACH branch. I'm just saying it is a BAD idea to gut ourselves so BADLY buy denying ourselves even the OPTION of this incredible weapon system.

The USN without Carriers?! BWHAHAHAHAHAHA...

*sniff*

Man, the idea itself is totally crazy! http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/biggrin.gif

[Lacky]

Modern torpedo's are not specifically designed to penetrate armor. The primary role of modern naval torpedo's (USN) is to create a large air bubble (void space) under/around the target's hull. This is done to "break the back" of the target, ensuring complete destruction.

Whether a BB could survive water evacuation is a questionable matter.

[I/O Error]

Yeah, both sides sort of quietly dropped that one a little while ago, since NEITHER side could actually prove how effective such an attack would be.

We starting asking the question, "could a submarine get CLOSE enough to do the damage?"

And the answer I came up with is that Carrier/Battleship Battle Groups are the most heavily defended formations in the world. It's POSSIBLE to get in, of course, but then that's even more of a thread with a carrier.

Thus we made Aegis Cruisers, CIWS Phalanx weapons, and the best ASW wing in any navy in the world.

[Jeff Pattison]

While I agree that the Iowa Class battleships are impressive from a fire support point of view, the Iowa's are obsolete and should remain mothballed for the following reasons.

First, high maintainance costs. Because the ships are more than 60 years old, many replacement parts required are not available and would have to remanufactured. While powerplant parts may be available from other ships, the real problem is the acquistion of parts for the 16" gun turrets. All the Iowa's, particularly the New Jersey, are into the end portion of barrel life on the 16 inchers and need to be refurbished.

Second, old ammunition stocks. While new ICM, subcaliber, and precision rounds have been tested, most of the ammunition specifically the powder charges date from 60's and before. Old powder may have been a factor in the cold bore explosion on the Iowa. The question of whether or not existing powder stocks are still safe will have to be answered. If they aren't, new powdered and shells will have to be manufactured.

Third, compared to ships of today, these ships were designed during a period when pollution of the worlds oceans was not a concern like it is today. These ships all leak oil and their waste disposal systems dump sewage straight to the ocean with no preprocessing.

[Jeff Heidman]

My point stands. The 16" gun does NOT have a range of 100 miles, it hsa a range of less than 25 miles.

The proposal is merely that, a proposal. It would have to be developed and deployed, and then what would you have? Gee a rocket fired from a gun! Woopeee!

I am sure it would be practically free. We all know how initial cost estimates for weapons that are nothing more then design concepts are always as cheap as they are estimated at... NOT!

I mean, get real! A 500lb projectile weight? Whats the point? For the same cost you could just design a less smart guided missile with at least that payload and range! You are essentially trying to find a weapon for a gun, when the same weapon would work just as well without the gun to begin with!

Sorry IO, but your "source" is nothing more than a "maybe", so I am still floating nicely on that one.

2. Your predator is nice, but hardly makes any difference. You still have to find the bad guys, and an unmanned RPV is not going to do that better than a manned recon plane. IIRC, the RPV is mostly to adjust fire, not spot targets.

3. Answer the question. How could the Iowa do what airpower could not in the examples you gave? Specifically, how could the Iows hit a target in, say Belgrade?

4. You are mazingly incorrect about the whole world knowing where carriers are. How exactly would they find that out? The ocean is a very big place, when you are not limited to a few miles along some coastline you would like to lob shells into.

5. The subs. You are ignoring my point, not the reverse. You can hear a dielsel when it is running the diesel, but since there is no reason for it to be running the diesel, you will not hear it. A semi-modern diesel-electric can tool allong at a 5-7 knots for hours, and be virtually indetectable. They do not need to go fast, or even go at all, since they can sit and let their targets come to them. The USN tries to maintain an effective ASW ring, as is largely successful simply because they do not need to try to do that close in shore, where the ranges get much shorter, and the background noise much louder.

Finally, the Iraqui commander is a great example of the power of land combat. If he was under the guns of that BB group for so long, why didn't *they* destroy him?

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by I/O Error:
Yeah, both sides sort of quietly dropped that one a little while ago, since NEITHER side could actually prove how effective such an attack would be.

We starting asking the question, "could a submarine get CLOSE enough to do the damage?"

And the answer I came up with is that Carrier/Battleship Battle Groups are the most heavily defended formations in the world. It's POSSIBLE to get in, of course, but then that's even more of a thread with a carrier. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? Why is it more of a threat?

Why is it easier to sneak up on a carrier that could be anywhere within a few thousand square miles in the blue than it is to sneak up on a BB cruising cose in to shore?

[Hilltopper]

By Jove! I've got it! Mount 16 inchers on F-14s! :)

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hilltopper:
By Jove! I've got it! Mount 16 inchers on F-14s! :)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No, no, no!

Much better to mount F-14s on the 16" guns!!! Don't you know that there is nothing that the Iowa class battleship cannot do?

Jeff Heidman

[Mark IV]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:
Don't you know that there is nothing that the Iowa class battleship cannot do?

Well, I know I got an education by actually reading the posts here, but there always comes a time to defer to a real authority on offensive power.

Back to my Pool. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/biggrin.gif


[This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 01-08-2001).]

[scoop88]

Gents:

Suggest you read http://www.usnfsa.com/articles/fsao/fsao7.htm

Would be interested in your reactions.

[I/O Error]

True, they have some interesting material there.

BTW, Jeff, I will hopefully be able to reply to your questions (if you care) either tomorrow or the next day.

(School work, you know how it is. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif)

------------------
Honor, Duty, Courage.

Valhalla awaits you, honorable warrior...

------------------------

"If you find yourself alone, riding through green fields with the sun on your face, do not be troubled, for you are in Elysium, and YOU ARE ALREADY DEAD!"

[I/O Error]

Last thing: Jeff, I still think you're:

1.) Taking it personally that I'm disagreeing with you

and

2.) Misunderstanding my basic point. BB = too useful a tool to simply chuck out. I am NOT recommending that it in anyway replace current weapon systems. Redundancy is good.


Anyway, like I said, I'll have to come back another day.

/me sprints off to bed and books.

[This message has been edited by I/O Error (edited 01-09-2001).]

[Jeff Pattison]

Read the article, I think his reactivation costs for battleship reactivation are suspect. Also, he doesn't consider the threat modern diesel submarines and mines pose to ships operating close in shore. While the submarines of Iranian Navy may not be a threat, the Chinese diesels are.

The North Carolina and South Dakota Classes had weaknesses in the stern and particularly the underbottom. The Iowa classes underwater protection was derived from both these previous classes. It is possible that the Iowas also possess these design flaws, but details of underwater protection systems are still classified.


[This message has been edited by Jeff Pattison (edited 01-09-2001).]

[Comstr]

Why don't they just build a new one? Isn't there plans for a Moniter-type ship carring 16" guns and a hell of a lot of missles?

'14's with 14" guns fly too fast. At the end of World War 2 the British mounted a 32 pounder gun in a Mossie fighter bomber (that's what, a 90mm?). Take THAT mister Tiger.

[scoop88]

Jeff:

I was wondering about that as I read it. The Missouri is now a floating museum at Pearl Harbor. Would not be easy reactivating that ship. In what states of readiness are the other Iowa-class ships?

The article does throw out a lot of statistics and other facts that make a strong argument for reactivation. I'd like to see the opposition come up with similarly convincing statistics for keeping the battleships mothballed. Then you can make a reasoned choice based on facts instead of opinions.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by I/O Error:
Last thing: Jeff, I still think you're:

1.) Taking it personally that I'm disagreeing with you

and

2.) Misunderstanding my basic point. BB = too useful a tool to simply chuck out. I am NOT recommending that it in anyway replace current weapon systems. Redundancy is good.


Anyway, like I said, I'll have to come back another day.

/me sprints off to bed and books.

[This message has been edited by I/O Error (edited 01-09-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


IO, I am not even remotely taking anything personally. If anything, I am concerned that you are taking the idea that the BB may not be worth the price personally!

As to your 2nd point, I am a lot closer to that than you think. But from what I can tell, that is a pretty significant step back form your previous position. It sure seemed to me (and others, AFAIK) that you were arguing that it *would* replace other weapons. I think I got that from your many posts talking about how great the BB is, and how much other weapons suck.

Do not take my bluntness as a sign of personal interest. My level of persoanl interest goes only so far as these types of discussions are a sometimes amusing diversion from getting real work done!

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by scoop88:
Jeff:

I was wondering about that as I read it. The Missouri is now a floating museum at Pearl Harbor. Would not be easy reactivating that ship. In what states of readiness are the other Iowa-class ships?

The article does throw out a lot of statistics and other facts that make a strong argument for reactivation. I'd like to see the opposition come up with similarly convincing statistics for keeping the battleships mothballed. Then you can make a reasoned choice based on facts instead of opinions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I jsut finished reading the article, and you are correct.

It does make a rather compelling case. The thing is, I still do not buy it. The picture they paint is almost TOO rosy. Frankly, I doubt the validity of their numbers, especially the financial ones. If it was that cheap, then why *did* the Navy park them?

I think the article makes a good case for why it would be nice to have a BB, but I do not buy their cost estimates. I would be willing to bet that the Navy has very different numbers for what those ships cost now, and will cost into the future.

Jeff Heidman

[Polar]

New suggestion....

Scrap the Iowas, use the cost to build a fleet of C-130 Gunships.

Sure the 16" guns are nice... but those C-130s are awesome! http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

I know, I know... they can't penetrate fortifications. But we already have bombs and missiles that do that.

And on that projectile that goes 100 miles: Someone alreday said this, but essentially, what that round is is a Tomahawk without the range. No wonder it never got past the drawing board. I thin their are quite a few Navy men with IO's disposition just looking for something useful for the Iowas.

To look at it in Historical terms, the arguement to keep the Iowa is akin to people in 1920's-30's arguing the usefulness of the Iron Clads.

Move on, I think the Pershing is an awesome tank... but I don't think we need it anymore. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif

Joe

------------------
"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

[Jeff Heidman]

Yeah, the proposal to launch what is essentially a missile from the gun tubes is an example of somone with a hammer desperately looking for a nail. Since when do you need a 16" gun to deliver a 500lb warhead 100 miles away?

The article talks a lot about the things a BB can do (other than their traditional role which is completely moot at this point), but from what I saw there was nothing there that it could do that could not be done by other platforms, with the exception of the ability to deliver massive firepower over a relatively short range. It can hold 128 Tomahawks? 32 Harpoons? Big deal. If we were so inclined we could cram something like 256 Tomahawks into a refitted Ohio. How about that for serious boom!

This argument is like someone with a shotgun claiming that it can and should be used as a rifle, and that we should get rid of our rifles in favour of the shotgun.

I mentioned this once before, but I will say it again. My general opposition to the idea of re-commissioning BBs is based on a limited budget. If Bush gets another $20 billion, and a decent chunk of that goes to the Navy, then perhaps it might be worth studying to find out what it would really cost, and what alternatives would cost.

Jeff Heidman

[Subvet]

It's not often that I get to talk navy stuff here, so I have to chime in.

I'm on the fence on whether or not to keep the old battlewagons around. Their use is very limited, but they are the best at what they do. To use the hammer analogy they are like a hammer that can only drive one type of nail, but they drive those nails twice as well. I guess I'd suggest we keep one or two in reserve in a state where they could be activated within a month if need be. If we ever had to take a defended beach these things could prove to be invaluable.

There was some talk of ASW and submarines, and this is one subject I know something about. Obviously a battleship would have to have at least one fast attack sub in its group. Any beach that the battleship planned to park off of would need to be cleared by a sub in advance too. As good as suface/air ASW is, it isn't as good as another submarine. I've participated in a few ASW exercises in the 90's. The sub I was on was NEVER "hit" in any of them that I'm aware of. We were very rarely even detected at all. Against older U.S. subs it was almost not even a challenge. I don't think any subs the Chinese have would be that much of a problem. As far as the battleships armor belt being of use against torpedoes, it isn't. A modern torpedo doesn't hit the armor with an explosive, it causes a void under the ship which uses the ships own weight against it.

[scoop88]

Subvet:

Good info, especially on the modern torpedo technology.

Jeff Heidman:

I agree, never take statistics or cost estimates as accurate unless you know the source. However, the article was originally published in "Proceedings," the U.S. Naval Institute publication, which is authoritative and reliable. Hopefully they check stuff like that before they publish it ... I would like to see the original article to see if the USNFSA "doctored" anything when they republished it on their Web site. I'll do some checking to see if I can find the original.

I'll check back with anything I can find out.

[scoop88]

Try http://www.southjerseynews.com/battleship/u020100j.htm

The above story published this year.

The U.S. Naval Institute's online archive for Proceedings only goes back to 1999. But this year John Lehman published a five-page story (referenced in the above South Jersey News article) advocating the reactivation of the Iowa-class battleship. Should be interesting, but it costs $5 to download if you're not a member!

[Jeff Heidman]

Good article scoop. It gives a non-detailed over-view of some of the arguments for and against.

John McCains support is nice. I have a lot of respect for that man. He would make ten times the president the current chump-elect is going to be.

Jeff Heidman

[IntelWeenie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Comstr:
Why don't they just build a new one? Isn't there plans for a Moniter-type ship carring 16" guns and a hell of a lot of missles?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There have been numerous proposals in recent years for "monitor" type shore bombardment ships, most armed with 1 or 2 6-8" guns and several missle bombardment systems like Tomahawk, Harpoon, and (my favorite) MLRS/ATACMS. MLRS would certainly be the biggest bang for the buck which is at the heart of this whole issue.

------------------
"It's a boy!" - My wife's OB/GYN
Nov. 8th, 4:45am

[Wesy]

Why don't we bring back the precursor to Air to Surface Missile! KAMIKAZE! We could use all those F4 Phantoms load em up with explosives and just fly at supersonic speeds or even at 600MPH...use lots of em and you'll overwhelm the opponents ability to defend against them http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif


------------------
"Lack of weapons is no excuse for defeat"
- Lt. General Renya Mutaguchi, Commanding General, Japanese Fifteenth Army, 1944-1945

[Subvet]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wesy:
Why don't we bring back the precursor to Air to Surface Missile! KAMIKAZE! We could use all those F4 Phantoms load em up with explosives and just fly at supersonic speeds or even at 600MPH...use lots of em and you'll overwhelm the opponents ability to defend against them http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Wesy, are you going to lead by example? http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif



[This message has been edited by Subvet (edited 01-09-2001).]

[Old Crow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:
Frankly, I doubt the validity of their numbers, especially the financial ones. If it was that cheap, then why *did* the Navy park them?

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably because we couldn't man them. As it stands now, if we didn't have women in the Navy, we couldn't man the ships we have.

[CavScout]

We won't need the BBs untill we find an enemy not nice enough to give us months to prepare, ala Gulf War, and we need to fight our way onto a beach. Unfortuantly, good men will have to die.

Cav

------------------
"Maneuverists have a bad case of what may be called, to borrow from a sister social science, 'Wehrmact ***** envy.'"--D. Bolger

Co-Chairman of the CM Jihad Brigade

"AS far as Steve and BTS (mostly Steve) are concerned, you are either a CM die-hard supporter, or you are dirt. If you question the game, implementation, or data models they used, you are some kind of neo-Nazi wanna-be, and become an open target for CavScout, SlippySlapDragon, and all the other sycophants who hang on Steves every word."-- Jeff Heidman [comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical]

[Guy w/gun]

We've decided to bombard China!?!?!?!? WOW..I havent heard about this before! :P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P

Ok...stupid, I know. But I just think It's funny how everyone in this thread is using China as the acid test for modern naval warfare!

There are plenty of enemies alot worse than China.

And for my 8 cents worth...Isn't a BB totally screwed if a torpedo WAS launched? I know the argument is that a sub would have a hard time getting close but IIRC all that armor on a BB is above the water. Torpedoes hit underwater, underneath armor originally meant to prevent shells above water from penetrating.

[Old Crow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Guy w/gun:
We've decided to bombard China!?!?!?!? WOW..I havent heard about this before! :P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P

Ok...stupid, I know. But I just think It's funny how everyone in this thread is using China as the acid test for modern naval warfare!

There are plenty of enemies alot worse than China.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As far as the Pacific rim is concerned China is proving to be the next naval force to counter. Granted, their capabilities at this time are fairly limited but they are steadily improving and they are being more aggressive in projecting a presence outside of their territorial waters. Their recent acquisition of a couple Sovremennyy DDG's loaded with SS-N-22's (a very deadly missile) has caused some concern out here. With the contention over the Spratley's, the ongoing tiff between China and Taiwan and the U.S. policy to ally with most of the Pacific nations, there is the possibility to draw the U.S. into some sort of limited engagement with China someday.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout:
We won't need the BBs untill we find an enemy not nice enough to give us months to prepare, ala Gulf War, and we need to fight our way onto a beach. Unfortuantly, good men will have to die.

Cav

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


CavScout, I just have to say I still find your sig a stitch.

[I/O Error]

My last word on Battleships:

It is entirely possible that my wish for Battleships is completely unneeded. I still do not believe that, deep down.

Jeff had said that my battleship belief was, "an example of somone with a hammer desperately looking for a nail."

Perhaps there is truth in that. However, the answer that Subvet gave is perhaps the best I have heard throughout this entire debate:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Subvet: To use the hammer analogy they are like a hammer that can only drive one type of nail, but they drive those nails twice as well. I guess I'd suggest we keep one or two in reserve in a state where they could be activated within a month if need be. If we ever had to take a defended beach these things could prove to be invaluable.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

THAT is exactly the sort of thing I believe in. I still believe that the tool still has a use in the modern battlefield, and can still perform a vital role that few in any weapon systems can match.

Can at least part of what it does be matched by other weapon systems? Yes. But what the BB does, it does "twice as well."

I am sorry if some of you got the (very much highly mistaken) impression that I advocated bringing back and BB and REPLACING other systems. In no way would I agree to such a move. The basic belief I operated under for this debate is that the BB is simply too valuable to throw away.

P.S. About the China section of the debate:

The USA is beginning to see China as a growing concern in the safety of US interests in the Pacific Rim, exactly as previously stated.

I fully expect a major conflict to arise over one of two major issues:

Issue One: I believe the US will soon officially recognize The Republic of China (aka Taiwan), which is technically still regarded by China as a rogue state.

Recognizing it could spark the same sort of result we might have expected if France and Great Britain had recognized the American South during the Second American Revolution (aka The Civil War) That would have been bad, and I expect it to happen with China. Taiwan possesses a democratic government, while China is still a "socialist old boy's club"

Issue Two:

The increasing trade deficeit between China and the United States. Anyone read Tom Clancy's "The Bear and the Dragon"?

Yeah, that book was a LITTLE too pat on the whole issue, but I do believe the point is a valid one.

(For the record, I held these beliefs BEFORE I got hooked on Clancy, just thought you should all know that... http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/tongue.gif)

For some reason, I don't see the Spratlys to be as much a major issue for the United States. We have lost interest in Southeast Asia, Indonesia, and the Phillipines, the other major potential combatants in such a war. I think our reaction would be limited to sending in a carrier group or two for "observation" and an attempt at moderation. We just don't get as much oil from that area as we used to, hence less interest for us.

Okay, I'm "outtie" http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif See you all later!

------------------
Honor, Duty, Courage.

Valhalla awaits you, honorable warrior...

------------------------

"If you find yourself alone, riding through green fields with the sun on your face, do not be troubled, for you are in Elysium, and YOU ARE ALREADY DEAD!"

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

CavScout, I just have to say I still find your sig a stitch. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Of course you do. Clean off your chin.

Jeff Heidman

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Of course you do. Clean off your chin.

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeff, you are so bitter. Be more happy. Lighten up. Not everyone on this list is your enemy. Tell your boss to buy you a nice bright IMAC and give you a window to work by.

(I would kill for a window. My office is in a subbasement right now.)

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:
Jeff, you are so bitter. Be more happy. Lighten up. Not everyone on this list is your enemy. Tell your boss to buy you a nice bright IMAC and give you a window to work by.

(I would kill for a window. My office is in a subbasement right now.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You just don't get it. I am not in the least bitter. I just think you are sad. You and Cav are the ones still clinging to something that was said months ago, and I am the one that is bitter?

Take your medicine like a man.

As far as an iMac goes, if my boss wants to buy me an iMac, I would use it the same as I am using this Dell. What difference does it make, assuming it is as fast and such?

I already have a window though. Sorry about being stuck in a basement. That has to suck.

I find it amusing that you keep picking fights, and then act surprised when you get a response.

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

BTW in case anyone was wondering about that extra $20 billion Bush wants for the military that I mentioned, it turns out that that is supposedly for new weapons development and procurement. Not sure if re-activating a battleship qualifies.

Be nice to actually buy some F-22s though...

Jeff Heidman

[Spook]

From the USAF POV, Jeff, I can tell you that the F-22 is being bought. And will be deployed. The possibility of a cancellation or major scaleback of the F-22 still exists, but the aircraft program that's now being put through the harshest political hurdles is the JSF.

But the fair questions to ask on F-22 are

1) How many per year?

2) Date of Initial Operating Capacity (IOC) for combat units?

2) Overall total? (Present target is app. 340, but may not even be this.)

[Jeff Heidman]

The best part of the F-22 debate was how the people trying to get it cut or scaled back kept complaining about the rising cost per plane.

Of course, when you spend some number of billions of dollars on research, and then slash the number of planes to be built in half, the cost per plane is going to rise enourmously. The same thing happened with the B-2.

The thing that was disturbing was the implication that if the F-22 (or B-2) cost X dollars per plane, we can save X dollars per plane by not building as many (or none). Of course this is false since of the X dollars per plane, the majority cost is for research, which ahs already been spent, and is lost no matter what you do.

Simplified sequence of events (numbers made up for simplicity):

1. Air Force: We can build 500 F-22s for 1 billion dollars. That is 1.2 million per plane, plus 400 million for development/research costs, total cost per plane is 2 million.

2. Senator: Thats too much. Cut your order to 250 planes.

3. Air Force. Dang. Ok, the cost is now 800 million, 3.2 million per plane.

4. Senator: Still too much, just build 100 of them.

5. Air Force: You kidding? OK, program cost is now 520 million, 5.2 million per plane.

6. Outraged Senator: This is ridiculous! The cost of this aircraft has almost tripled! Cut the entire program!

7. Air Force: OK, now the cost is 400 million for no planes. Good job.

Jeff Heidman

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 01-10-2001).]

[Spook]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Of course, when you spend some number of billions of dollars on research, and then slash the number of planes to be built in half, the cost per plane is going to rise enourmously. The same thing happened with the B-2.

The thing that was disturbing was the implication that if the F-22 (or B-2) cost X dollars per plane, we can save X dollars per plane by not building as many (or none). Of course this is false since of the X dollars per plane, the majority cost is for research, which ahs already been spent, and is lost no matter what you do.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Basically true, but some clarification is required here.

First off, the total "research" isn't all done yet, surprising as that may sound. The F-22 is still in its Engineering, Manufacturing, & Development phase (EMD).

The F-22 Systems Program Office (SPO), about two buildings away from mine, had to deal with near-term annual congressional budgeting constraints, both in cost & schedule, for most of the 1990's. The near-term focus to stay on the milestone track got the F-22 past its worst detractors, but also resulted in significant "stretching" of the program. Each stretch results in an overall cost increase per aircraft, as the prime contractor (Lockheed) was being underemployed, but it was still paid a given level so that it would remain willing to continue the F-22 contract.

Journals like Aviation Week are pretty good at providing updated status on the F-22 program, for those interested.

[Jeff Heidman]

Granted. I realise that, but simplified to make the point.

There are all sorts of costs related to the program that are non-recoverable.

Someone interested enough to read an Aviation journal will know what is happening, but when Congressman Schmoe is doing a press release, he counts on the fact that most people do not. So he just cites the increasing cost per plane (likely driven by his own actions) as evidence that the program should be cut or scaled back.

Politicians suck.

The only real question should be the marginal cost per plane. How much it will cost to build one more, irrespective of the sunk costs.

Anyone know what that currently stands at for the F-22? F-16? F-15?

Jeff Heidman

[Wesy]

Subvet,

I think I'll enlist now and become the FIRST offical Kamikaze for the USA! Seriously though, the IOWA or South Dakota Class BB during WWII proved to be akin to an Aegis cruiser/Arleigh Burke class destroyer in terms of fleet air defense...They had I believe 20 5"/38, the best DP 5" around with just awesome (for the time) fire control...made even better with the funny fuze (Proximity Fuse). Tons of 40mm (towards the end of WWII, these were also radar controlled). Essentially the goal of the Kamikaze was to essentially overwhelm the defenses of the task force, hence, it has become a vision for today's fleet air defense tactics against air to surface missiles. The BB's not only were able to keep up with the CV's to provide awesome firepower against air targets, but also had the bonus of being able to provide some serious throw weight at land and or naval targets...

As a side note, I recently went on a vacation to Japan and met a friend of my fathers who in fact was a "surviving" member of the Kamikaze.

------------------
"Lack of weapons is no excuse for defeat"
- Lt. General Renya Mutaguchi, Commanding General, Japanese Fifteenth Army, 1944-1945

[Subvet]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wesy:
Subvet,

As a side note, I recently went on a vacation to Japan and met a friend of my fathers who in fact was a "surviving" member of the Kamikaze.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


That's pretty interesting. I can only try to imagine the feelings he must have had when the war ended. Guilt that he didn't get to complete his mission? Relief and happiness to be spared? The Japanese military men that I find the most interesting of all though is those guys that held out on remote islands untill the 70's. Wow, talk about dedication!

[Maximus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xavier:
Beyruth... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Beyruth??? Don't you mean Beruit?

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

CavScout, I just have to say I still find your sig a stitch. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/biggrin.gif

Why thanks.

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:
You just don't get it. I am not in the least bitter. I just think you are sad. You and Cav are the ones still clinging to something that was said months ago, and I am the one that is bitter?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bitter? I just find it very humorous. It's a good laugh. Laugh with us, it is so much easier than thinking we are laughing at you.

Cav

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 01-10-2001).]

[Wesy]

Subvet,

They don't really talk about it...My uncle was also in the IJA stationed in Manchuria from '43 on...He was eventually captured by the Soviets and spent three years in the gulag near Lake Baikal.

When I was in Japan, I got to go to the Yushukan (Military Museum right next to the Yasukuni Shrine). Essentially all the old vets go there to pray for the war dead. The museum is really cool, the have an old Japanese Tank, a Kaiten (suicide sub/torpedo), 150mm, 75mm arty (both naval and land), a "baka" bomb (rocket assisted suicide weapon). Lots of uniforms, swords, weapons dating all the way back to the Sino Japanese War through WWII

When I visited the Imperial Palace, you get the right wingers out there signing the national anthem and yelling "Banzai!". The old folks holding out till the 70's are kinda viewed like Don Quixote...

------------------
"Lack of weapons is no excuse for defeat"
- Lt. General Renya Mutaguchi, Commanding General, Japanese Fifteenth Army, 1944-1945

[Sparky9292]

F-16 Falcons roughly cost about $22 million per jet. My dad flew them extensively before he retired.

Adding to the Battleship debate, my dad said that battleships are out of date because they usually are escorted by an armanda of destroyers, subs, etc, and are a BIG target for tactical nukes that can be launched by even an F-16.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sparky9292:
[B]F-16 Falcons roughly cost about $22 million per jet. My dad flew them extensively before he retired.
B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that for the original vanilla F-16A? I assume so. Currently the F-16C Block 52 are going for well over $50 million I think. Of course, they are vastly more capable than the original F-16.

Jeff Heidman