# Battleship gun range? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 20, 2001, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-gun-range/88597 "2001-10-20T16:58:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-gun-range/88597/121 "2001-10-30T00:57:47Z")
> [@](#): > > However, as convincing as you’ve all been I just can’t shake the nagging suspicion that they are past their day. There’s no doubt about that, but there’s nothing else readily available, nor anything near-term in the pipeline. > [@](#): > > Using the BB as a floating hospital or machine shop? That’s nice but that was far more important during WWII than it is today. You will always have dedicated hospital ships no matter how good a BB or CV is at it (no cost savings there). As for machine shops parts for just about anything can be shipped worldwide in such short order that a machine shop would be hardpressed to make something faster and in quantity and of equal quality and precision (except for simple items and maybe not even then). It doesn’t work like that. You just don’t dial up HQ and ask for these parts, to be drop-shipped to the nearest port. If you need the part, and it’s not in aboard, you either get it from another vessel, or you do without until you can get to someone who _does_ have the part. Let me give you an example: Returning from the Persian Gulf in late 1991, the USS Fanning lost her brine-overboard pump for her distillation plant. Without that pump, she couldn’t make fresh watter, and without fresh water, she was DIW. Dead-in-the-water. I got the pump’s impeller and volute in my shop, because there was no other parts like it in the battlegroup (low-failure parts, and on an uncommon design). The impeller was so damaged that you could literally read a newspaper through it, and the volute needed extensive cold-patching and shimming. When I was done, they had an impeller that lasted until the USS Cimmarron (supply and replenishment vessel) could reach the battlegroup. Had the battlegroup not been escorting us (a Submarine Tender) home, the Fanning would have spent three or more days bobbing powerless in the middle of the ocean. As for hospital ships, we only have two, and until Reagan went for his “600 ship navy”, we had none. Even today, the hospital ships only leave port in the event of a major shooting war, major disaster, or to prove that they still float. In-between these events, it’s up to the LHAs, LPHs, and CVs to handle the hospital ship duties. The BBs would be a welcome addition to that service. > [@](#): > > In short what the marines want is the world’s most expensive artillery system. While impressive and better than anything else currently in inventory or on the drawing boards the times they have been needed (and _need_ might be too strong of a word here) have been extremely few and far between in the last 30 years. Nor does it seriously look like there would be a great need in the foreseeable future. Although some would like to ignore this aspect of the equation I still think it is important and VERY relevant to why you should spend the money on battleships. Planning your miltary to peace is a good way to get caught flatfooted and without the capacity you need when you need it. I’ll grant you that the US has a long tradition of doing just that, but that doesn’t make it any smarter. > [@](#): > > wouldn’t try landing without it. So, we own the air. Exactly what stationary force waiting to repel marines wouldn’t be vaporized in a few days of unrestricted air attacks? Digging in won’t help them like it did in WWII. Bunker-buster bombs and FAE’s would see to that. Mobile troops? Lay some cluster bombs around them and see how far they go. By the time the battleship shows up to support the marine landings there would be precious little left for it to blow up and all achieved by planes using low-tech (read cheap) weapons and not expensive Tomahawks or the like. This is the line the Airforce keeps taking, but it’s been disproven time and again. In every circumstance where airpower has been applied, significant numbers of the enemy remain unkilled, ready, and willing to fight back. The Marines know this, and as masters of their trade, if they think they need heavy artillery, I’m going to take their ward for it. Even the pasting given the Iraqi failed to render them combat incapable. Sure, many of their units just folded, but some of their units put up one hell of a fight, and had there not been combined forces ready to take them, we’d have taken heavy casualties. Combined arms is a deadly combination, but it means _combined_. Airpower, artillery, infantry, and armor all working together. > [@](#): > > I’ll grant the US military is capable of some seemingly crazy decisions but how they could ignore numbers as obvious as those posted here is beyond me _unless there is more to the story_. Politics, inter- and intra-service rivalries. Read up on the story of the M-2 Bradley development if you want a first-rate and well-documented story of offical military mendacity. If you don’t want to read, watch the “Pentagon Wars”, produced by HBO. My father personally knows the Airforce officer that kept rocking the boat, and considers him a hero. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-gun-range/88597/122 "2001-10-30T03:10:26Z")
I just want to elaborate on the difference between offshore bombardment and aircraft/missile attack. The big difference is that offshore bombardment is available 24/7, on short notice. And it’s not just used to keep the enemy’s ‘head down’. A major advantage is that you can prevent the enemy from concentrated troop and armor movements. For instance, you can land your armor on the beaches,and if the enemy tries to bring massed armor to bear against them, they’ll be decimated by offshore bombardment. Without it, you leave windows of vulnerability because aircraft can’t loiter all day. And cruise missiles are very expensive to use against troops and mobile armor. Taking out a single tank with a cruise missile is probably a net loss for the country firing the missile. Anyway, I think that the Battleship did become obsolete at one time, but no longer is. That sounds like a contradiction because we aren’t used to military hardware being useful again after being obsolete for a long time. But the world has changed. The U.S. can now establish air supremacy over pretty much anyone in the world, and that makes the wartime environment much less threatening to the battleship. In the cold war you could argue that Battleships wouldn’t survive the first day of battle, so they were outmoded. But that’s not the case today. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-gun-range/88597/123 "2001-10-30T05:48:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > \*\*Anyway, I think that the Battleship did become obsolete at one time, but no longer is. That sounds like a contradiction because we aren’t used to military hardware being useful again after being obsolete for a long time. But the world has changed. The U.S. can now establish air supremacy over pretty much anyone in the world, and that makes the wartime environment much less threatening to the battleship. In the cold war you could argue that Battleships wouldn’t survive the first day of battle, so they were outmoded. But that’s not the case today. \*\* That is an excellent statement, and I should’ve made it myself. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-gun-range/88597/124 "2001-10-30T05:57:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > \*\ ***Tranquilis, SenorBeef** and others make a good case for the continued existence (or re-existence) of battleships. All other considerations aside I’d love to see them sailing the seas once again. > > However, as convincing as you’ve all been I just can’t shake the nagging suspicion that they are past their day. \*\* “Battleships became obsolete with the widespread use of carriers” is one of those unquestioned facts that we learn in our daily lives. It’s hard to shake that sort of thing. > [@](#): > > \*\* > The only thing proposed as a role for the battleship is as an artillery platform to support marines. \*\* Nope. I’ve mentioned several times on this thread that they’re safe, and cost effective ways to bomb the hell out of your enemy’s infrastructure. The US often does this in it’s wars. It’s a $500 shell taking out a power plant is a lot cheaper than a tomahawk, and a lot safer than an airplane. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > Protecting shipping in the gulf could have been achieved just as easily by nearly any US ship from a destroyer on up. The battleships in that case weren’t safe because people were afraid of the ship. The battleships were safe because attacking _any_ US naval ship would bring the wrath of the US military down on their heads. \*\* Tell that to the stark, I guess. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Those little speed-boat things they occasionally attacked with were ridiculously outclassed by anything the US had in the area at the time. If anyone was serious about sinking US naval vessles a concerted air attack would have been the way to go but it never materialized. > > Using the BB as a floating hospital or machine shop? That’s nice but that was far more important during WWII than it is today. You will always have dedicated hospital ships no matter how good a BB or CV is at it (no cost savings there). > > As for machine shops parts for just about anything can be shipped worldwide in such short order that a machine shop would be hardpressed to make something faster and in quantity and of equal quality and precision (except for simple items and maybe not even then). \*\* Tranquilis already covered this one. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > In short what the marines want is the world’s most expensive artillery system. While impressive and better than anything else currently in inventory or on the drawing boards the times they have been needed (and _need_ might be too strong of a word here) have been extremely few and far between in the last 30 years. \*\* The US hasn’t really “needed” any naval ships in the last 30 years. Of course, if we want to fight a war effectively, “needs” go out the window. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > Nor does it seriously look like there would be a great need in the foreseeable future. Although some would like to ignore this aspect of the equation I still think it is important and VERY relevant to why you should spend the money on battleships. \*\* So we’re not going to have any conflicts on the future with nation’s with a coast? > [@](#): > > \*\* > > Again I go back to what aircraft can achieve for the marines. **Tranquilis** took me to task on my weapon choices (napalm, cluster bombs, FAE’s, etc.) based upon close fire support. I was talking from the basis that the marines aren’t even on the beach yet. We’ve established that a BB wouldn’t move in an area without air superiority and the marines certainly wouldn’t try landing without it. So, we own the air. Exactly what stationary force waiting to repel marines wouldn’t be vaporized in a few days of unrestricted air attacks? Digging in won’t help them like it did in WWII. Bunker-buster bombs and FAE’s would see to that. Mobile troops? Lay some cluster bombs around them and see how far they go. By the time the battleship shows up to support the marine landings there would be precious little left for it to blow up and all achieved by planes using low-tech (read cheap) weapons and not expensive Tomahawks or the like. \*\* Air support will never replace artillery. They’re tactically different beasts. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > I am not familiar with the new breed of ‘heavy’ destroyers people have talked about in this thread. I can only assume that these ships are seen as able to fit a broader range of missions than what a battleship would be called to do. Assumptions are dangerous things I’ll grant but it’s the only thing that makes sense. If _all_ the new destroyers are able to do is strictly to replace a BB in its role and _if_ everyone’s numbers are correct (I accept them unless proven otherwise) then it goes beyond blind stupidity of the military to build such ships. I’ll grant the US military is capable of some seemingly crazy decisions but how they could ignore numbers as obvious as those posted here is beyond me _unless there is more to the story_. \*\* The military has blown money on projects tons of times in the name of looking cutting edge, or a higher-ups pet project. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > Certainly in the past we’ve seen admirals who refused to accept new weapons and preferred to stay with the tried and true stuff they knew. \*\* We’ve also seen admiral’s who have the “I want to be the next heinz guderian” syndrome, who want to look like they’re new and innovative and not bound to the old “dinosaur” tried and true things. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > The battleship admirals of WWII who refused to recognize the potential of aircraft carriers or submarines till later in the war are one such case. At least those guys could be somewhat forgiven because the battleships were proven weapons and the subs and carriers were relatively untried. The ‘penis stroking’ carrier admirals today have the value of hindsight. They _know_ what a battleship does and what it can do. They _know_ the capabilities of a carrier group. When adding up the numbers a battleship just isn’t flexible enough in its mission roles to be of much value even if it is the BEST floating artillery system on the planet and damn near indestructible. \*\* I, and many, disagree. ---
**Author:** ![justinh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9fc29f/32.png) [@justinh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justinh)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-gun-range/88597/125 "2001-10-30T13:43:21Z")
slight hijack, what do the 1700 crew on a battleship do all day? I would guess that about a quarter are support for the others. so what does 1000 crewmembers do? ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-gun-range/88597/126 "2001-10-30T15:57:39Z")
The crew: - Stand watch in engineering. - Stand watch on the bridge. - Stand watch in CIC. - Man the lookouts. - Man the sickbay. - Cook the meals. - Repair things that break. - Pull maintenance on things that haven’t broke _yet_. - Stand watch in the radio shack. - Serve the meals. - Eat the meals. - Clean up after the meals. - Clean the ship. - Maintain the hull (chip and paint). - Maintain the rest of vessel. - Run drills (study “war”, or firefighting, or a hundred other posibilities)). - Study for advancement. - Study for Ship’s quals. - Study for warefare specialty (Surface Warfare quals). - Sleep (when they can). - And about a thousand other things. 24 hours a day. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-gun-range/88597/127 "2001-10-30T16:17:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SenorBeef \* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > > Protecting shipping in the gulf could have been achieved just as easily by nearly any US ship from a destroyer on up. The battleships in that case weren’t safe because people were afraid of the ship. The battleships were safe because attacking _any_ US naval ship would bring the wrath of the US military down on their heads. > > \*\* > > Tell that to the stark, I guess. And to an earlier response on the Stark where I suggested the Phalanx weapons systems had been turned off… > [@](#): > > _SenorBeef wrote:_ > Actually, this happened because the ships self-defense systems were simply turned off on account of not having any fear of enemy threat. So, by your own estimation the Stark would have been as likely to take two Exocet hits even if it was a battleship and not a frigate. While searching around for details on what went wrong in when the USS Stark got hit (surprisingly little out there beyond breif descriptions of the incident) I found the following. > [@](#): > > The SQL-32 system installed on the USS Stark was only capable of identifying threat systems and providing this information to the crew. According to the ship’s crew, the SQL-32 detected the launch aircraft but did not identify the Exocets. > > Source: The United States General Accounting Office [http://161.203.16.4/d49t13/149971.pdf](http://161.203.16.4/d49t13/149971.pdf) (you need Adobe Acrobat installed to view document) The whole document just linked gives a withering report on the Navy’s SQL-32 system that it relies on for fleet defense. Still, that document is a bit old but I came across the following, more recent report, that again has the GAO hammering the Navy’s supposed ability to defend itself from missile threats. > [@](#): > > There is a growing threat in that GAO lists at least 10 antiship cruise-missile systems that either are deployed by other countries or soon will be. And despite nearly $4 billion having been earmarked by the Pentagon for ship antimissile defenses since 1906, only two relatively minor classes of Navy vessels have seen any improvement in their ability to counter an attack, reports GAO. The Navy “overstates the actual and projected capabilities of surface ships to protect themselves from cruise missiles because the models used in the assessment to determine capabilities include a number of optimistic assumptions that may not reflect the reality of normal fleet operations,” says GAO. > > - \ \* > > Moreover, reports GAO, though the Navy since the Cold War has shifted its focus from fighting on the open ocean to **near-shore waters (where its ships face an increased threat from missiles)**, it currently lacks any comprehensive strategy for improving its capabilities in response to the mid- and long-term threat it faces from the increasingly sophisticated missiles that potential adversaries fire deploying. Source: [Insight Magazine](http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1571/30_16/64426346/p1/article.jhtml?term=%22USS+Stark%22) _Bolding is mine_ From this I gather that: A) Battleships (or any ship for that matter) are at a much greater threat from missiles than has previously been suggested and… B) The fact that battleships do need to be close to shore to provide their intended support does, in fact, place them at higher risk than a ship out to sea would face. I’ll grant the proposed replacements for the battleship would seem to be even worse off than a battleship for near-shore support. That assumes, however, that the new ships don’t possess some newfangled anti-missile systems that might actually be expected to work (or perhaps the ships are more stealthy making it harder to get a lock on them…I don’t know). If all we are getting is a tin can destroyer with smaller guns meant to replace the bigger guns of a battleship and that destroyer has _nothing_ else going for it (faster, cheaper operating costs, cheaper procurment costs, more survivable, greater mission flexibility, etc.) then they are downright stupid as a replacement. I know most of that list has already been addressed in favor of the battleship. I also realize that politics within the Pentagon are as goosey as anywhere else you care to mention. Nevertheless if all that has been said is true of the new destroyers vs. the old battleships then the people responsible should be court-martialed for dereliction of duty (or something). US navy sailor’s lives depend on these decisions. That some might die (not to mention potentially losing a conflict) because of no more than a jones for a new _something_ (especially if that something has ZERO compelling arguments supporting its case) then the people responsible should be stripped of rank and imprisoned if not outright shot by a firing squad. ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-gun-range/88597/128 "2001-10-30T18:31:15Z")
The role of the worlds ocean going navies has changed, or rather the priorities are differant the various threat remain but at differant levels. It was assumed any major conflict would involve Russian subs, convoy duties, small tactical nuclear weapons and an extremely short operating time possibly measured in tens of minutes. Carriers in such an environment had the main role of getting their aircraft airborne before they were destroyed, but BBs had no effective way of carrying the fight to the enemy in the short time frame and are not equipped for anti-submarine tasks. The main threat is from much smaller regional powers without subs, nuclear weapons an inferior air force. This is similar to the situation in the 1920’s except that there were other nations with BBs to consider. The original role of the BB was to command the seas and deny enemy shipping but the sort of mission available to BBs means that enemy ships are few and will be sunk by carrier borne aircraft. All we are left with is the occasional shore bombardment, but there are few enough opportunities for that in todays world of conflict. Those big guns were no use in Kosovo, nor in Somalia, nor in Afghanistan, nor in Rwanda, nor in East Timor not in Bosnia,or Kuwait or Grenada or Sierra Leone, how often were they fired during the Armilla patrol ? In fact in what conflict did they last play a pivotal role ? Korea ? Vietnam ? The world has changed a great deal in those thirty years. There might be times when you have opposed landings by a well equipped, well dug in and well trained enemy but at the moment no obvious threat exists and if it did then surely such an enemy would have shore based missiles, and subs and aircraft. It seems a very expensive option to keep such a vessel running constantly, with its large crew and fuel demands when you can keep operating other ships which are more likely to come against a mission for which they were designed. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-gun-range/88597/129 "2001-10-30T18:31:18Z")
> [@](#): > > US navy sailor’s lives depend on these decisions. That some might die (not to mention potentially losing a conflict) because of no more than a jones for a new _something_ (especially if that something has ZERO compelling arguments supporting its case) then the people responsible should be stripped of rank and imprisoned if not outright shot by a firing squad. No arguement from me on that issue. Military mendacity has a long and infamous history, and not just in the US. The M-2 Bradley is the most recent example where ego, priviledge, and money came together and tried to hand the grunts a leathal tool. Lethal to themselves, that is. Rent a copy of the “Pentagon Wars”. It’s factual, well produced, frightening, and infuriating. The Navy has had more than it’s share of stupid political, prestiege, and monetary screw-ups, going as far back as the “gunboat navy” of the early 1800s and the infamous exploding canon of the pre-Civil War years. Nothing new about that. ---
**Author:** ![justinh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9fc29f/32.png) [@justinh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justinh)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-gun-range/88597/130 "2001-10-30T19:32:22Z")
I know that a lot of the men are there for support of the rest of the crew (kitchen staff, service staff,…). but what does it take to drive the battleship around the world one time. that means that no maintenance. no repair. how many men does it take to start it up and go someplace. and what do they do? captain - 1 navigator - 3 (1 per 8 hour shift) drivers - 3 " engineers - 6 (2 per 8 hour shift) watchouts 6 - (2 per 8 hour shift) cook 1 radiomen - 3 (1 per 8 hour shift) I realize there are no gunners or anything. but just to move the ship around what more does it take? ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-gun-range/88597/131 "2001-10-30T19:44:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by SenorBeef \* > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > > > Protecting shipping in the gulf could have been achieved just as easily by nearly any US ship from a destroyer on up. The battleships in that case weren’t safe because people were afraid of the ship. The battleships were safe because attacking _any_ US naval ship would bring the wrath of the US military down on their heads. > > > > \*\* > > > > Tell that to the stark, I guess. > > And to an earlier response on the Stark where I suggested the Phalanx weapons systems had been turned off… > > > [@](#): > > > > _SenorBeef wrote:_ > > Actually, this happened because the ships self-defense systems were simply turned off on account of not having any fear of enemy threat. > > So, by your own estimation the Stark would have been as likely to take two Exocet hits even if it was a battleship and not a frigate. \*\* Right. He suggested that any US navy ship was equally ‘safe’ in that context. The stark almost sunk when hit with an exocet, something a BB wouldn’t do. I didn’t mean to suggest the antimissile systems failed (they were simply shut off), but simply that the ability to take damage was clearly different. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > While searching around for details on what went wrong in when the USS Stark got hit (surprisingly little out there beyond breif descriptions of the incident) I found the following. > > > [@](#): > > > > The SQL-32 system installed on the USS Stark was only capable of identifying threat systems and providing this information to the crew. According to the ship’s crew, the SQL-32 detected the launch aircraft but did not identify the Exocets. > > > > Source: The United States General Accounting Office [http://161.203.16.4/d49t13/149971.pdf](http://161.203.16.4/d49t13/149971.pdf) (you need Adobe Acrobat installed to view document) > > The whole document just linked gives a withering report on the Navy’s SQL-32 system that it relies on for fleet defense. Still, that document is a bit old but I came across the following, more recent report, that again has the GAO hammering the Navy’s supposed ability to defend itself from missile threats. \*\* Interesting. From what I’ve read, at the very least, the phalanx radars detected the threat, but they were essentially set on “safe” mode, and the ship was hit before anyone could do anything about it. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > There is a growing threat in that GAO lists at least 10 antiship cruise-missile systems that either are deployed by other countries or soon will be. And despite nearly $4 billion having been earmarked by the Pentagon for ship antimissile defenses since 1906, only two relatively minor classes of Navy vessels have seen any improvement in their ability to counter an attack, reports GAO. The Navy “overstates the actual and projected capabilities of surface ships to protect themselves from cruise missiles because the models used in the assessment to determine capabilities include a number of optimistic assumptions that may not reflect the reality of normal fleet operations,” says GAO. > > > > - \ \* > > > > Moreover, reports GAO, though the Navy since the Cold War has shifted its focus from fighting on the open ocean to **near-shore waters (where its ships face an increased threat from missiles)**, it currently lacks any comprehensive strategy for improving its capabilities in response to the mid- and long-term threat it faces from the increasingly sophisticated missiles that potential adversaries fire deploying. > > Source: [Insight Magazine](http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1571/30_16/64426346/p1/article.jhtml?term=%22USS+Stark%22) > _Bolding is mine_ > > From this I gather that: > > A) Battleships (or any ship for that matter) are at a much greater threat from missiles than has previously been suggested \*\* Real world experience (ie gulf war) has shown that a battleship with even modest escorts can defend itself from antiship missile. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > and… > > B) The fact that battleships do need to be close to shore to provide their intended support does, in fact, place them at higher risk than a ship out to sea would face. \*\* I’ll agree with that, but the degree by which the danger is increased is not that high. If an antiship missile platform is within 100 miles of the sea, then it’s within range of the battleships guns, making their ability to launch questionable. If it’s not, then the battleship has plenty of time to take defensive action. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > I’ll grant the proposed replacements for the battleship would seem to be even worse off than a battleship for near-shore support. That assumes, however, that the new ships don’t possess some newfangled anti-missile systems that might actually be expected to work (or perhaps the ships are more stealthy making it harder to get a lock on them…I don’t know). \*\* I’m sure they’ve got a smaller radar cross section simply on the basis of size, but I doubt they’re stealthy enough to seriously avoid detection at operational ranges (60 miles of shore). > [@](#): > > \*\* > > If all we are getting is a tin can destroyer with smaller guns meant to replace the bigger guns of a battleship and that destroyer has _nothing_ else going for it (faster, cheaper operating costs, cheaper procurment costs, more survivable, greater mission flexibility, etc.) then they are downright stupid as a replacement. \*\* It wouldn’t be the first time. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > I know most of that list has already been addressed in favor of the battleship. I also realize that politics within the Pentagon are as goosey as anywhere else you care to mention. Nevertheless if all that has been said is true of the new destroyers vs. the old battleships then the people responsible should be court-martialed for dereliction of duty (or something). US navy sailor’s lives depend on these decisions. That some might die (not to mention potentially losing a conflict) because of no more than a jones for a new _something_ (especially if that something has ZERO compelling arguments supporting its case) then the people responsible should be stripped of rank and imprisoned if not outright shot by a firing squad. \*\* To be honest, there might be more to the story. But back when I made this a pet subject, I did a decent amount of research (and even wrote my congressman, who talked to someone in the navy on my behalf), and it looked pretty clear cut, from every source, that the battleship was a clearly better idea. So I’m not trying to be intellectual dishonest or deceitful in my advocacy - and for that matter, this apparently clear cut decision is the reason for my advocacy. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-gun-range/88597/132 "2001-10-30T22:19:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*I know that a lot of the men are there for support of the rest of the crew (kitchen staff, service staff,…). but what does it take to drive the battleship around the world one time. that means that no maintenance. no repair. how many men does it take to start it up and go someplace. and what do they do? > > captain - 1 > navigator - 3 (1 per 8 hour shift) > drivers - 3 " > engineers - 6 (2 per 8 hour shift) > watchouts 6 - (2 per 8 hour shift) > cook 1 > radiomen - 3 (1 per 8 hour shift) > > I realize there are no gunners or anything. but just to move the ship around what more does it take? \*\* Sorry, you need the maintainance and repair. Things break, especially topside and in Engineering. Fortunately for your question, the people who stand the watches also do the repairs. So: Typical bridge watch: Two to four lookouts, a Quartermaster or two (maps & charts), a helmsmen or two, The Officer of the Deck (in charge of the watch, the Junior Officer of the Deck (assistant to the OOD, keeps him/her from being distracted by minutae), Boatswains Mate Of the Watch (makes all announcments to the ship), One or two messengers (to wake up on-coming watchstsanders, fetch coffee, fetch or carry whatever needs fetching and carrying), and one or two phone talkers (internal communications via sound-powered phones), plus maybe a Signalman. The Skipper, XO, and Navigator may or may not aso be on the bridge, but they have plenty of other duties that keep them hopping, so they’re normally only on the bridge when really important evolutions are in progress (such as coming into port, or restricted manuevering, etc.) Engineering watch (per engineroom. There are multiple engine rooms): The Engineering officer of the Watch, the Junior Engineering Officer of the Watch, at least one throttleman, at least one Electrical Operator (probably two or three, depending on the complexity of the plant), One or more roving electricians, the lead mechanic of the watch (supervising probably a dozen or more other mechanics and rovers), Phone talkers (although some watchstanders will double up this with their primary responsibilities). I’ve oversimplified this tremendously because I’m unfamiliar with BB’s engine rooms. Fireroom (boilers) Watch (multiple spaces):Similar to an Engine room (see above). Deck watch: four or more lookouts in various locations about the ship, each with their own phone talker. Sounding and security: Two or more (in a BB, probably six or more) sailors who rove the ship, checking tank levels, inspecting machinery spaces, and looking out for fire. This is just a _touch_ on what’s required to move a large ship, and I’ve likely grossly over-simplified the areas I _did_ touch, because my experience with large ship watchstanding stops at Submarine Tenders. The fact is, warships are personnel-hungry and labor-intensive. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-gun-range/88597/133 "2001-10-31T01:32:34Z")
SenorBeef wrote: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by casdave \* > > \*\*Why armour is not always your friend. > > > > When any closed hollow object is penetrated by an explosive device, the blast(or Brissance effect) operates on the points of greatest resistance, producing a shattering effect which breaks metal apart like it was glass, which adds hugely to the destructive effect on personel. > > > > The rapidly expanding gases however take the least resistance path, what this means is that if there is a only nice small entry hole, the gases will be forced elsewhere, and so expand inside the ship, this will blast away the clips on watertight bullkhead doors and compromise the watertight integrity of the hull.\*\* > > Is it SOP to have an antiship missile set on a delay fuse in that fashion? It sounds like you’re asking, “Is it Standard Operating Procedure to have an antiship missile detonate a few milliseconds **after** impact, rather than at the **instant** of impact, so that the missile will have had time to penetrate the enemy’s armor so that its warhead payload is physically inside the target’s hull?” If that is in fact your question, then – if I understand missiles correctly – you’re making an incorrect assumption. You are assuming that the contact switch which detonates the warhead is located at the **front** of the missile. In non-proximity air-to-air missiles – and, I’m guessing, in armor-piercing anti-ship missiles as well – the detonation contact switch is located on the missile’s main fins. These are either at the **center** or the **rear** of the missile. Thus, at the instant the contact fuse is tripped, the missile’s warhead will **already be inside** the target’s hull. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-gun-range/88597/134 "2001-10-31T03:18:05Z")
**Casdave Said:** > [@](#): > > Those big guns were no use in Kosovo, nor in Somalia, nor in Afghanistan, nor in Rwanda, nor in East Timor not in Bosnia,or Kuwait or Grenada or Sierra Leone, how often were they fired during the Armilla patrol ? In fact in what conflict did they last play a pivotal role ? Korea ? Vietnam ? The world has changed a great deal in those thirty years. The _Missouri_ and the _Wisconsin_ both saw action in the Gulf War, and their involvement was widely credited as having a significant effect in the war. Here’s a short blurb from the DoD on Battleship effectiveness in the Gulf: [http://www.usnfsa.com/articles/dod/dod1.htm](http://www.usnfsa.com/articles/dod/dod1.htm) ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-gun-range/88597/135 "2001-10-31T03:39:40Z")
\*\ ***Casdave Said:** > [@](#): > > Those big guns were no use in Kosovo, nor in Somalia, nor in Afghanistan, nor in Rwanda, nor in East Timor not in Bosnia,or Kuwait or Grenada or Sierra Leone, how often were they fired during the Armilla patrol ? In fact in what conflict did they last play a pivotal role ? Korea ? Vietnam ? The world has changed a great deal in those thirty years. Er, “weren’t in the area” is a different thing from “no use”. For Kosovo, they weren’t even in the Navy. They weren’t in the area of somalia. (There were no carriers there, either, I don’t think… you’re not trying to say carriers are useless, are you?) Afghanistan, is one of the few land locked nations, yes. Rwanda, I don’t know the geography, but most of the population in such nations are on teh coast line. Bosnia, 16" shells aren’t exactly meant for peacekeeping. Kuwait, were used quite effectively. Sierra Leone - I don’t know that conflict. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-gun-range/88597/136 "2001-10-31T03:44:58Z")
The Gulf War actually was very interesting in that it really showed the power of a battleship, and how they have been modernized. Some facts (mostly from the DoD report linked above: [ul] [li]The Battleships now carry their own fleet of UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) which provide spotting and bomb damage assessment for the 16-inch guns, which improves their effectiveness greatly.[/li][li]The proposed new cruisers with 5-inch guns would have been useless in the Gulf, because the threat of mines and the shallow water kept the ships outside the range of the 5-inch guns.[/li][li]The battleships fired 1,102 16-inch rounds, with over 90% of them being spotted by their own UAVs, giving high accuracy. Accurate enough that a Battleship took out an Iraqi Artillery emplacement with a single salvo from 19 miles out.[/li][li]It would have taken 542 A-6 bombing runs to put the same amount of ordinance on the ground as was fired from the Battleships.[/li][li]The Iraqis were so terrified of the Battleships that they were surrendering to the unmanned UAVs when they saw them. I remember this clearly when I watched the war.[/li][li]The first shot in the Gulf war was fired by a Battleship (Tomahawk cruise missile)[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![big\_dad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e56c9b/32.png) [@big\_dad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/big_dad)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2012, 9:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-gun-range/88597/137 "2012-05-25T09:23:20Z")
First off let me tell you all our weapons depend on other weapons to keep them from being destroyed. when we work as a team we are powerful as a nation. Battleships are almost at an end to their usefullness. For this reason and the fact that it would be cost prohibitive to replace them they have been mothballed. This extendes their usefullness for a short time. A B52 can carry several different missels that have the capability of sinking a ship of any kind. one of the latest missels can sink a battleship or aircraftcarrier from 1500 miles away with one shot undetected. I know this because i have loaded them on a B52. Other countries have simalar capabilities. shore bombardment can be carried out most effectively by many aircraft. most modern aircraft can hit almost any target with great accuracy. During the gulf war b52s carried out bombing around the clock with great effect using gravity bombs. and i might add with a range that reached from the united states to iraq and back again safely. I would rather see you all be for the whole USA than for a single weapon better than the other. Remember it is a combined effort that keeps our military mighty. ---
**Author:** ![MonkeyMensch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@MonkeyMensch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MonkeyMensch)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-gun-range/88597/138 "2012-05-30T05:05:41Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > They keep saying battleships are outdated, and then they mothball them, and then they have to bring them out of mothballs when they discover that they need them after all. As in the Gulf war. A small correction: both _Wisconsin_ and _Missouri_ were active duty battleships when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Both participated in Operation Desert Storm. Neither _Iowa_ nor _New Jersey_ were there. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-gun-range/88597/139 "2012-05-30T15:10:34Z")
> [@casdave](#): > > Current philosophy in designing anti-ship missiles. > > Why armour is not always your friend. > > When any closed hollow object is penetrated by an explosive device, the blast(or Brissance effect) operates on the points of greatest resistance, producing a shattering effect which breaks metal apart like it was glass, which adds hugely to the destructive effect on personel. Although this would not by any means be a _cheap_ solution, I wonder about the feasibility of using modern composite armors (“Chobham” and others, such as the armor on M1A3 main battle tanks) in battleship thicknesses, either by refitting the old BBs or building new ones. (I did say this wouldn’t be “cheap!”) Such armors stop HEAT-type shaped charges and are more effective than the equivalent of many times their thickness in steel. ---
**Author:** ![Cicero](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cicero/32/3594_2.png) [@Cicero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cicero)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-gun-range/88597/140 "2012-05-31T13:53:39Z")
Please note that this is a zombie at #136 (just in case). While the forces used to drag battleships out of mothballs to use them, there was never any suggestion to build new ones. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-gun-range/88597.md?page=6)