# 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:** 10\ **Page:** 4
**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, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier-out-of-ammo-edition/628562/61 "2012-07-19T16:40:47Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > 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. Actually, I’d expect that even if it were the Iowa that T-boned the Nimitz, it would still be the one to crumple like a beer can. The carrier is over twice as heavy, and twice as long (so more area for water resistance). It won’t budge. Essentially, a ramming scenario would boil down to a sedan running into an 18-wheeler at speed (or vice versa, or god forbid running into each other head on). Doesn’t really matter which hits which how: the sedan’s going to be the one worse for the wear when the metal has stopped screaming. The truck will crumple some, sure, but then, the Nimitz can afford to crumple some - lotsa empty room for those useless, weaponless planes ; and it also has more airtight compartments than the Iowa (not only because it has strictly more volume, but also because it’s of a more modern build, after people realized how flooding caused by torpedoes and airborne bombs works, and how to fight it). Even if they crumpled the exact same amount of bulkheads & compartments, the Nimitz still floats better after the substraction. And as long as it still floats in the end, it wins ! So it will end up wrecked too. Sell it to Argentina or something. Who told you to pit your own capital ships into a demolition derby anyhow, you lunatics ?! 😛 ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier-out-of-ammo-edition/628562/62 "2012-07-20T00:41:55Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Who told you to pit your own capital ships into a demolition derby anyhow, you lunatics ?! 😛 Hmmm…so, the _Enterprise_ is scheduled to be decommissioned soon. Apparently, what with all the nuclear reactors, turning her into a museum ship is right out. I imagine the oldest of the _Nimitz_ class will be following fairly soon as the newer _Gerald Ford_ class come on line, and I imagine turning them into museum ships will be considered equally unfeasible, since they’re also nuclear powered. Meantime, much as I love old battleship museums–do we really need _all four_ of the _Iowa_ class preserved as museum ships? In order words–we could maybe turn _Enterprise_ or _Nimitz_ and one of the _Iowa_s over to Mythbusters or someone like that and get some actual empirical data to answer some of these whacky questions. Think of the ratings! ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier-out-of-ammo-edition/628562/63 "2012-07-20T02:10:59Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > and I imagine turning them into museum ships will be considered equally unfeasible, since they’re also nuclear powered. I don’t think that would be a significant problem - [http://www.ussnautilus.org/](http://www.ussnautilus.org/) ---
**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 20, 2012, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier-out-of-ammo-edition/628562/64 "2012-07-20T17:01:46Z")
> [@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. If both ships had the same hull design. Drop a 10 pound ball of popcorn onto a one pound ball of iron. Now drop a one pound ball of Iron onto a 10 pound ball of popcorn. Which recieves the greater damage? ---
**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 20, 2012, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier-out-of-ammo-edition/628562/65 "2012-07-20T17:13:48Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Actually, I’d expect that even if it were the Iowa that T-boned the Nimitz, it would still be the one to crumple like a beer can. The carrier is over twice as heavy, and twice as long (so more area for water resistance). It won’t budge. > > Essentially, a ramming scenario would boil down to a sedan running into an 18-wheeler at speed (or vice versa, or god forbid running into each other head on). Doesn’t really matter which hits which how: the sedan’s going to be the one worse for the wear when the metal has stopped screaming. The truck will crumple some, sure, but then, the Nimitz can afford to crumple some - lotsa empty room for those useless, weaponless planes ; and it also has more airtight compartments than the Iowa (not only because it has strictly more volume, but also because it’s of a more modern build, after people realized how flooding caused by torpedoes and airborne bombs works, and how to fight it). Even if they crumpled the exact same amount of bulkheads & compartments, the Nimitz still floats better after the substraction. And as long as it still floats in the end, it wins ! > > So it will end up wrecked too. Sell it to Argentina or something. Who told you to pit your own capital ships into a demolition derby anyhow, you lunatics ?! 😛 The 18 wheeler made me think of another example to use. A fully loaded 18 wheeler vs a sherman tank. The truck loaded iss heaver than the tank, but how can the truck take out the tank? If a BB T boned a carrier, the BB would penertrate a long way into the carrier. And if it could back out I would think the carrier would still be able to stay afloat. The BB’s bow would probably be destroyed back to and maybe including the 1st gun mount. The skin on a carrier I believe is around 1 inch. The BB’s had around 8 or more inches. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier-out-of-ammo-edition/628562/66 "2012-07-20T19:21:05Z")
> [@Snnipe\_70E](#): > > The 18 wheeler made me think of another example to use. A fully loaded 18 wheeler vs a sherman tank. The truck loaded iss heaver than the tank, but how can the truck take out the tank? > If a BB T boned a carrier, the BB would penertrate a long way into the carrier. And if it could back out I would think the carrier would still be able to stay afloat. The BB’s bow would probably be destroyed back to and maybe including the 1st gun mount. The skin on a carrier I believe is around 1 inch. The BB’s had around 8 or more inches. Not on the bow. The armored belt does not extend much further than the forward turret (and it’s barbette). ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier-out-of-ammo-edition/628562/67 "2012-07-20T19:41:08Z")
> [@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… Carrier already has a giant catapult. Might be able to make use of it. Carrier has a very small amount of small arms on board so would have to make make shift weapons by the thousands. I don’t know what small arms the BB carriers. BB would have the advantage in ramming. CV has more men. BB was requested duty thus sailors on board probably more experience and more gunghoe. On the other hand, Nimitz class carrier might be able to launch radioactive materials at BB. Tough scenario. I would give the CVN a slight advantage. ---
**Author:** ![AndrewL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@AndrewL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AndrewL)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier-out-of-ammo-edition/628562/68 "2012-07-20T20:07:09Z")
> [@What\_Exit](#): > > On the other hand, Nimitz class carrier might be able to launch radioactive materials at BB. Other than giving the crew on the BB a slightly higher chance of cancer years later, what is this supposed to do? ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier-out-of-ammo-edition/628562/69 "2012-07-20T23:31:08Z")
> [@AndrewL](#): > > Other than giving the crew on the BB a slightly higher chance of cancer years later, what is this supposed to do? Scare tactics at least, but good point, my bad. ---
**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 21, 2012, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier-out-of-ammo-edition/628562/70 "2012-07-21T03:53:37Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > Not on the bow. The armored belt does not extend much further than the forward turret (and it’s barbette). And that is why I would think the bow would crunch back to the forward turret. That is notmany compartments to have flooded. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier-out-of-ammo-edition/628562.md?page=3)