# Battleship versus Aircraft carrier: Out of ammo edition **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 17, 2012, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier-out-of-ammo-edition/628562 "2012-07-17T21:35:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2012, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier-out-of-ammo-edition/628562/41 "2012-07-18T19:55:59Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > What if a battleship gets in range of a carrier before the carrier can launch aircraft? The carrier launches and the planes arrive . . . There are no planes. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2012, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier-out-of-ammo-edition/628562/42 "2012-07-18T19:57:15Z")
The battleship presumably is designed to stand up to shelling from an enemy battleship, and the aircraft carrier is not. Therefore, the battleship wins if it gets close enough to the carrier to ram it, and does. The battleship’s hull has a better chance of surviving that collision. The carrier breaches and sinks. ---
**Author:** ![zoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zoid/32/336_2.png) [@zoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoid)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2012, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier-out-of-ammo-edition/628562/43 "2012-07-18T20:18:26Z")
> [@Critical1](#): > > I also read this story, I think the human won but I am not sure. We’re here, aren’t we? ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2012, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier-out-of-ammo-edition/628562/44 "2012-07-18T21:12:42Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > [Arena](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arena_%28short_story%29) by Fredric Brown. Thank you sir/ma’am! Disappointingly, the wiki article doesn’t mention how Carson killed the alien. ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2012, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier-out-of-ammo-edition/628562/45 "2012-07-19T00:40:30Z")
> [@Mr.Slant](#): > > Sure! > Can you imagine weighted barrels actually making a difference against the ship, or are you considering them as anti-personnel weapons during boarding actions? > I’m thinking the former is hella’ unlikely. Perhaps … but if you can take out the personnel while they are still on the Iowa, and damage stuff like radar, antennas and stuff on deck it can help the ‘war effort’. Though I wonder what an 85 gallon overpack that has been filled with cement weighs if you salt the cement with scrap metal. hmmm… \ Filled with assorted steel crap and cement he says roughly 1500 to 2000 pounds. Lead bats + cement in an overpack down in the RadCon shop. I think that could put a serious dent when flung even on armor. People on deck, forget it. [what is the thickness of the armor on the superstructure of the Iowa? My Janes is out in the barn] ---
**Author:** ![zoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zoid/32/336_2.png) [@zoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoid)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2012, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier-out-of-ammo-edition/628562/46 "2012-07-19T00:46:49Z")
Why not fill it with jet fuel and a fuse? ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2012, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier-out-of-ammo-edition/628562/47 "2012-07-19T03:43:11Z")
I seem to recall recall seeing carriers with very large access holes/ports in their hangar decks. Can those all be sealed? If not, perhaps battleship crew can ninja their way across to the carrier through them, without so much disadvantage. Also – [when carrier and battleship collide](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VO3D3YOmKGo/TmLbrtUrs1I/AAAAAAAAAJc/OeaeoTUfsm0/s1600/RC1_BBCVJeanBart_Bow2_2011-09-04.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![Snnipe\_70E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5a626/32.png) [@Snnipe\_70E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snnipe_70E)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2012, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier-out-of-ammo-edition/628562/48 "2012-07-19T05:31:02Z")
You are starting with both ships facing bows on a 1 knott and 10 miles. If one ship starts to turn away from the other he will be presenting a broad side to be rammed. So I would assume each would try for a bows on ram. It will depend on which captian turns first. The carrier’s bow will be a bulbous bow sticking out infront of the ship, I do not believe they are armor plated, so it is going to crush. The bow of the BB will be armor plated with a torpedo blister. The BB’s bow will plow very deep into the carrier. But if hit dead center bow to bow the BB will be stuck deep into the carrier this would give the crew of the carrier all the time to board the BB. The trick if at the proper time the BB needs to Turn the helm full one direction wait about one minute and shift the helm full the other way. if properly timed it will allow the BB to make a major tear down the side of the carrier . And if properly timmed upset the shaft on one of the outer shafts. As the two ships pass some of the crew from the carrier canjump down on the the BB’s deck. But at a combined speed aproaching 60 knotts the two ships will not be in contact long. After the BB clears the carrier the BB’s crew can clean up the members of the carrier crew. If done right the carriers speed will be cut more than the BB’s. Now the BB can circle around and make a pass at the carrier’s stern to take out the rudders and then the other outside shaft. Now the BB attemps to punch more holes in the carrier. Now if the carrier’s captian turns the right way at the right time he may be able to cause the BB to get burried deep in the carrier’s hull wher it can not get away. Also If the carrier gets lucky no holes punched in its hull as the two ships pass and if as they pass the carrier turns into the BB they should be able to take out one screw on the BB. As as I see it which one will win, “it depends”. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2012, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier-out-of-ammo-edition/628562/49 "2012-07-19T06:19:53Z")
No offence, but why is this thread in GD? ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2012, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier-out-of-ammo-edition/628562/50 "2012-07-19T11:35:42Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Iowa-class battleship > Speed: 31 knots (36 mph; 57 km/h) > Range: > 14,890 miles (23,960 km) @ 15 knots (17 mph; 28 km/h) > 11,700 miles (18,820 km) @ 20 knots (23 mph; 37 km/h) > Complement: > 2,700 officers and men (WWII, Korea) > 1,800 officers and men (1980s) > Draft: 36 ft (11 m) maximum > Nimitz-class aircraft carrier > Speed: 30+ knots (56+ km/h; 35+ mph) > Range: Unlimited distance; 20-25 years > Complement: > Ship’s company: 3,200 > Air wing: 2,480 > Draft: > Maximum navigational: 37 ft (11.3 m) > Limit: 41 ft (12.5 m) Iowa displaced mass: 45.000 tons. Nimitz displaced mass: a little over a hundred thou (plus the mass of the planes, assuming second hypothetical). Nimitz rams Iowa at full speed. Game ? Over. ---
**Author:** ![Face\_Intentionally\_Left\_Blank](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/face_intentionally_left_blank/32/288_2.png) [@Face\_Intentionally\_Left\_Blank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Face_Intentionally_Left_Blank)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2012, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier-out-of-ammo-edition/628562/51 "2012-07-19T11:57:23Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > The battleship can do like old-time Superman enemies. Run out of ammo, throw your gun at him. > > First, we’ll need to construct a giant catapult… Sadly there are giant catapults sitting on the aircraft carrier deck, just ten miles away! Oh, sweet _IRONY!_ 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Slant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c57346/32.png) [@Mr.Slant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Slant)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2012, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier-out-of-ammo-edition/628562/52 "2012-07-19T13:14:24Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > No offence, but why is this thread in GD? That was where I thought I saw the previous Battleship v. Carrier thread. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2012, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier-out-of-ammo-edition/628562/53 "2012-07-19T13:19:04Z")
I can’t wait for the clipper ship vs. 3-masted schooner thread. Followed shortly by the kayak vs. canoe one. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2012, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier-out-of-ammo-edition/628562/54 "2012-07-19T13:20:03Z")
> [@Mr.Slant](#): > > That was where I thought I saw the previous Battleship v. Carrier thread. That shouldn’t have been here either. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Slant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c57346/32.png) [@Mr.Slant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Slant)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2012, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier-out-of-ammo-edition/628562/55 "2012-07-19T13:24:37Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > That shouldn’t have been here either. My bad. I figured the community liked it there, given that the original run of that thread was about 7 days without it getting moved. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2012, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier-out-of-ammo-edition/628562/56 "2012-07-19T14:07:06Z")
Hey, no problem. It was just something I was wondering about - this thread seems like classic IMHO fodder. But the Mods apparently think otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2012, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier-out-of-ammo-edition/628562/57 "2012-07-19T15:55:08Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > I think that could put a serious dent when flung even on armor. People on deck, forget it. [what is the thickness of the armor on the superstructure of the Iowa? My Janes is out in the barn] Essentially zero, in terms of major caliber shells and bombs. However, even though the superstructure is made of mild steel (I forget the thickness. Half inch? Less?), it will provide some cover and protection from small arms fire (anything less than 50 cal). > **[Iowa-class battleship | Armor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_class#Armor)** > > Like all battleships, the Iowas carried heavy armor protection against shellfire and bombs with significant underwater protection against torpedoes. The Iowas' "all-or-nothing" armor scheme was largely modeled on that of the preceding South Dakota class, and designed to give a zone of immunity against fire from 16-inch/45-caliber guns between 18,000 and 30,000 yards (16,000 and 27,000 m; 10 and 17 mi) away. The protection system consists of Class A face-hardened Krupp cemented (K.C.) armor and Cl... > **[All or nothing (armor)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_or_nothing_(armor))** > > All or nothing is a method of naval warship armor, best known for its employment on dreadnought battleships. The concept involves heavily armoring the areas most important to a ship while the rest of the ship receives no armor. The "all or nothing" concept avoided light or moderate thicknesses of armor: armor was used in the greatest practicable thickness or not at all, thereby providing "either total or negligible protection". Compared to previous armoring systems, "all or nothing" ships h T... > [@wiki](#): > > From the Nevada class on to its Iowa class, the United States Navy pioneered the all or nothing approach without taking it to its logical conclusion. > > \ > > The superstructure housing command facilities, communications, and radar also remained vulnerable; ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2012, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier-out-of-ammo-edition/628562/58 "2012-07-19T16:04:53Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > Essentially zero, in terms of major caliber shells and bombs. However, even though the superstructure is made of mild steel (I forget the thickness. Half inch? Less?), it will provide some cover and protection from small arms fire (anything less than 50 cal). > > [Iowa-class battleship - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_class#Armor) > > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All\_or\_nothing\_(armor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_or_nothing_%28armor)) Heh so a ton or more of cement and scrap metal will pretty much blow through it at steam catapoult+terminal velocity speed … So much for that. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2012, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier-out-of-ammo-edition/628562/59 "2012-07-19T16:16:40Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > Heh so a ton or more of cement and scrap metal will pretty much blow through it at steam catapoult+terminal velocity speed … > > So much for that. Terminal velocity? You’re not going to get to terminal velocity (which I interpret to mean the highest gravity induced speed possible in an atmosphere) falling from flight deck level to the water line/sea level. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2012, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier-out-of-ammo-edition/628562/60 "2012-07-19T16:20:07Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Iowa displaced mass: 45.000 tons. Nimitz displaced mass: a little over a hundred thou (plus the mass of the planes, assuming second hypothetical). > > Nimitz rams Iowa at full speed. Game ? Over. Ramming is an option but it would be my last choice. Ramming causes damage to both ships and you’d be left in the middle of the ocean with a damaged vessel. Triremes and icebreakers were designed to run into things and survive but not at 56mph. If the Iowa managed to position itself in such a way that it could centerpunch the Nimitz at full speed, it would definately sink the Nimitz but how much damage would the Iowa sustain? I assume the Nimitz would not be a sitting duck. If it were dead in the water, there would be no point in ramming it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier-out-of-ammo-edition/628562.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier-out-of-ammo-edition/628562.md?page=4)