# Bring back the battleships? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 14, 2009, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860 "2009-02-14T20:42:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**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:** [February 19, 2009, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/121 "2009-02-19T15:28:00Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > This website contains the operational history of a bunch of USN ships, including all of the capital ships. Quite a few of the US BB’s were pretty active from early on, doing the patrols that needed doin. > > [http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/](http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/) > > Ranger was definately not as capable as the earlier Lexington class, but she was at least as capable as a CVE. Yet we look back through the mists of time and view her as a piece of junk. 😃 I guess standing in the shadow of the Essex’s is a heavy cross to bear. I thought the Ranger (CV-4) was the Flag Ship that led 4 escort Carriers and greatly assisted the landings in Africa. I seem to recall they provide air superiority, blew up dozens of tanks and hundreds of trucks and wiped out airfields. She was the first true US Carrier built as one from the start. For a 1931 ship she did a good job. She gave of a CV presence in the Atlantic when we desperately needed the newer Essex carriers in the Pacific. I was proud that our ship the USS Ranger CV-61 was named after her and of course the most Ranger, commanded by John Paul Jones. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/122 "2009-02-19T15:33:46Z")
> [@What\_Exit](#): > > I thought the Ranger (CV-4) was the Flag Ship that led 4 escort Carriers and greatly assisted the landings in Africa. I seem to recall they provide air superiority, blew up dozens of tanks and hundreds of trucks and wiped out airfields. > > She was the first true US Carrier built as one from the start. For a 1931 ship she did a good job. She gave of a CV presence in the Atlantic when we desperately needed the newer Essex carriers in the Pacific. > > I was proud that our ship the USS Ranger CV-61 was named after her and of course the most Ranger, commanded by John Paul Jones. Correct. [http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/carriers/cv4.htm](http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/carriers/cv4.htm) > [@hazegray](#): > > Ranger received two battle stars for World War II service. Operation Torch, and the raids on German shipping in/around Norway. ---
**Author:** ![Enterprise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/76d3ee/32.png) [@Enterprise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enterprise)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/123 "2009-02-19T16:15:19Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > Wasp was extremely vulnerable too, and two sub torp hits turned her into a blow torch. Yes, absolutely, but I would suggest that the same would have happened at this point in time to a _Yorktown_. _Wasp_ was singularly unlucky in that she was hit by three submarine torpedoes while undergoing flight operations, with open aviation gas lines. Three torpedoes is a very severe dose for any ship. I would not discount vulnerability as a reason why _Ranger_ was not deployed in the Pacific, but I think other reasons were more important: she had vastly lower endurance (half that of _Wasp_), a slightly lower speed, a smaller deck area, and no catapults. I’m sure the Navy was not happy about having to use _Wasp_ in the Pacific either, but _Ranger_ was a much worse ship. Incidentally, if this post seems much more detailed than my previous one on _Ranger_, it’s because I’ve looked at books. I suppose I could have done that first…🙂 ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/124 "2009-02-19T17:22:07Z")
> [@Enterprise](#): > > Yes, absolutely, but I would suggest that the same would have happened at this point in time to a _Yorktown_. _Wasp_ was singularly unlucky in that she was hit by three submarine torpedoes while undergoing flight operations, with open aviation gas lines. Three torpedoes is a very severe dose for any ship. I would not discount vulnerability as a reason why _Ranger_ was not deployed in the Pacific, but I think other reasons were more important: she had vastly lower endurance (half that of _Wasp_), a slightly lower speed, a smaller deck area, and no catapults. I’m sure the Navy was not happy about having to use _Wasp_ in the Pacific either, but _Ranger_ was a much worse ship. > > Incidentally, if this post seems much more detailed than my previous one on _Ranger_, it’s because I’ve looked at books. I suppose I could have done that first…🙂 Two torps hit Wasp. 😉 Ranger had a larger hangar than the Lexington class, IIRC. (I’m not at home, don’t have access to my stuff.) Wiki lists: Ranger ---------Wasp --------- Sangamon CVE Tonnage 15k tons---------15k tons --------- 22k tons (?) Speed 29.3 ----------- 29.5-------- 18 Range(fuel) 10k Nmi ---------12k Nmi --------- unk Length 769 ft --------- 741 ft --------- 533 ft Width 86 ft --------- 109 ft --------- 75 ft Aircraft 76 --------- 76 --------- 30 Wiki lists Ranger width = 109, and is incorrect. (Actually, browsing the interweb, I notice that there is conflicting info on different websites on the three ship classes. Sigh.) Wiki does not go into details, like the size and speed of the elevators (which regulates the tempo of flight ops). Perhaps the Rangers elevators were kinda dinky. Ranger’s engineering plant may have been in desperate need of overhaul, I cannot remember. Your right about the catapults. Catapults were definately going to be needed in '44+ with the heavier aircraft, like a bomb laden corsair. Edit: damn. i put spaces in my comparison list, but the board deleted them. sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Enterprise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/76d3ee/32.png) [@Enterprise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enterprise)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/125 "2009-02-19T18:13:22Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > Two torps hit Wasp. 😉 You’re right, of course. > [@](#): > > Ranger had a larger hangar than the Lexington class, IIRC. (I’m not at home, don’t have access to my stuff.) That’s certainly possible, as _Lexington_’s hangar wasn’t especially well designed. It was also a closed design, as opposed to _Ranger_’s open one. > [@](#): > > Wiki lists: Ranger ---------Wasp --------- Sangamon CVE > > Tonnage 15k tons---------15k tons --------- 22k tons (?) > Speed 29.3 ----------- 29.5-------- 18 > Range(fuel) 10k Nmi ---------12k Nmi --------- unk > Length 769 ft --------- 741 ft --------- 533 ft > Width 86 ft --------- 109 ft --------- 75 ft > Aircraft 76 --------- 76 --------- 30 That was also my bad – I misread the endurance numbers given (or rather, not given) by Friedman. _Wasp_’s endurance is not listed, so I suspect that there are no reliable figures for her apart from the design range, which I can’t find. > [@](#): > > Wiki does not go into details, like the size and speed of the elevators (which regulates the tempo of flight ops). Perhaps the Rangers elevators were kinda dinky. > > Ranger’s engineering plant may have been in desperate need of overhaul, I cannot remember. _Ranger_ was considered to require a significant overhaul every 6 months to check the deterioration of her speed. > [@](#): > > Your right about the catapults. Catapults were definately going to be needed in '44+ with the heavier aircraft, like a bomb laden corsair. They were needed on such small ships even in 1942, and I suppose this is a major crux and the reason to prefer _Wasp_ to _Ranger_. The SBD’s maximum takeoff weight was above 10.000 pounds, and the TBF weighed as much empty; and 10.000 pounds was the magic barrier in the _Ranger_ design according to Friedman, at which she would not be able to launch planes from further forward than her arresting gear – not enough room to spot a deckload strike, in other words. Two other reasons I will maintain are _Ranger_’s lack of torpedo storage and the worse position of her magazines, which were partially above the waterline. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/126 "2009-02-19T18:39:46Z")
> [@Enterprise](#): > > You’re right, of course. > > That’s certainly possible, as _Lexington_’s hangar wasn’t especially well designed. It was also a closed design, as opposed to _Ranger_’s open one. > > That was also my bad – I misread the endurance numbers given (or rather, not given) by Friedman. _Wasp_’s endurance is not listed, so I suspect that there are no reliable figures for her apart from the design range, which I can’t find. > > _Ranger_ was considered to require a significant overhaul every 6 months to check the deterioration of her speed. > > They were needed on such small ships even in 1942, and I suppose this is a major crux and the reason to prefer _Wasp_ to _Ranger_. The SBD’s maximum takeoff weight was above 10.000 pounds, and the TBF weighed as much empty; and 10.000 pounds was the magic barrier in the _Ranger_ design according to Friedman, at which she would not be able to launch planes from further forward than her arresting gear – not enough room to spot a deckload strike, in other words. Two other reasons I will maintain are _Ranger_’s lack of torpedo storage and the worse position of her magazines, which were partially above the waterline. My apologies for derailing the thread. :smack: I could babble all day on this trivia. ---
**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:** [February 19, 2009, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/127 "2009-02-19T18:58:08Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > My apologies for derailing the thread. :smack: I could babble all day on this trivia. Don’t apologize. The BB discussion was pretty well done and this was a fascinating turn. Thank you for the new direction. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/128 "2009-02-19T19:09:41Z")
Don’t encourage me!! The CVE’s were slow (aka easilly hit) and had little protection either, but they were risked in front line combat areas. (They had no catapults either. I think they flew the SBD’s and FM2 Wildcats once those models were replaced on the Fleet carriers.) If Ranger’s engineering plant was as crummy as **Enterprise** staes, I would agree that that would absolutely condemn her to rear area roles once the “emergency” years (1942 & early '43) passed. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/129 "2009-02-20T02:11:32Z")
The latest battleship news! [French battleship intact after nearly a century under water - CNN.com](http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/02/19/italy.battleship/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/130 "2009-02-20T06:19:00Z")
Per a request, I have looked up shipweights. I will give them all unloaded (light) since we are talking about armor, and then give ship length. Nimitz Class, of which there are 13. 78,000 tons. 1040 feet at waterline. [Nimitz-class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz_class_aircraft_carrier). Enterprise, only one in class, 73,800 tons, 1,123 long (unknown if at waterline). [USS Enterprise (CVN-65) - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CVN-65)) Iowa Class (I see her at least once a week, she is mothballed at Suisun) 45,000 tons, 861.5 feet in length. [Iowa-class battleship - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_class_battleship). There were 4. Yamato Class, two battleships and one more finished as a carrier. [Yamato-class battleship - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato_class_battleship). 68,200 tons, 839 feet. Bismarck class. 2 ships. 41,700 tons, 792.6 feet. [Bismarck-class battleship - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bismarck_class_battleship) Ton for foot, the Yamatos were the heaviest, but the quality of the steel might make a difference. The Iowas were never seriously threatened. The Yamatos and the Bismarcks took incredible beatings before going down. Nimitz carriers are substantially heavier than the Iowas and Bismarcks, but roughly the same as the Yamatos, maybe a bit less ton for foot. However, it is a safe bet that the steel quality is better and they are probably multi-hulled for practical purposes with many water tight compartments. ---
**Author:** ![puppygod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@puppygod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puppygod)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 9:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/131 "2009-02-20T09:56:14Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > The latest battleship news! [French battleship intact after nearly a century under water - CNN.com](http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/02/19/italy.battleship/index.html) Now, submarine battleships - that’s the idea for future development! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Otara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a88e4f/32.png) [@Otara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otara)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/132 "2009-02-20T10:18:32Z")
Sort of been done already: [http://submariners.co.uk/Dits/Articles/m1.php](http://submariners.co.uk/Dits/Articles/m1.php) > **[HMS M1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_M1)** > > HMS M1 may refer to the following ships of the Royal Navy: Otara ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/133 "2009-02-20T15:05:32Z")
See also: [French submarine Surcouf - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surcouf_(N_N_3)) ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/134 "2009-02-20T15:32:11Z")
Uh, **Second Stone** , I _hope_ you’r not implying that because the Nimitz class is slightly heavier than the Yamato’s, they must be carrying as much armor… ---
**Author:** ![puppygod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@puppygod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puppygod)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/135 "2009-02-20T17:53:36Z")
**Otara** and **Elendil’s Heir** - i knew about “Mutton Legs” and Surcouf - it was just my attempt at somewhat lame joke. Thanks for the links anyway - they may be interesting for other Dopers. ---
**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:** [February 20, 2009, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/136 "2009-02-20T20:20:40Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Ton for foot, the Yamatos were the heaviest, but the quality of the steel might make a difference. The Iowas were never seriously threatened. The Yamatos and the Bismarcks took incredible beatings before going down. Nimitz carriers are substantially heavier than the Iowas and Bismarcks, but roughly the same as the Yamatos, maybe a bit less ton for foot. However, it is a safe bet that the steel quality is better and they are probably multi-hulled for practical purposes with many water tight compartments. But that does not address armor thickness, merely bulk and flotation. You’re onto something with steel quality – apparently armchair experts feel that the higher quality armor belt in the American battleships made them equivalent to, or better than, the thicker but lower-quality armor of the the Yamato/Musashi class, but that’s a technical argument over minor differences. It’s armor belt thickness, along with “rational” armor distribution, that makes a battleship tough. Although tonnage does contribute to ability to absorb damage, a lot of the tonnage on a carrier is bombs and fuel, which can be, um, less protective than armor plate. I assume that the magazines of modern carriers ARE armored, but I doubt the whole package comes close to a true battleship’s durability. Here’s a very cool page for battleship comparisons: [Who was the baddest?](http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2009, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/137 "2009-02-21T05:45:48Z")
On the subject of armour quality, does anyone know if advances made in this area for land vehicles could be carried over to battleships? Would composite armour be as effective against anti-ship warheads as it is against anti-tank warheads? ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2009, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/138 "2009-02-21T06:33:14Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > On the subject of armour quality, does anyone know if advances made in this area for land vehicles could be carried over to battleships? Would composite armour be as effective against anti-ship warheads as it is against anti-tank warheads? I’ve no doubt that it would be and is likely done to provide protection of vital areas such as magazines. Just to note it though, protection designed against HEAT or HESH warheads would be pretty pointless for a warship. Penetration or spalling is a serious concern for a tank since the crew compartment is so small and could also easily reach the ammunition. On a warship, such weapons would just make a small hole in the side of the ship and likely kill anyone unfortunate enough to be in the compartment that was hit, but it would have no meaningful effect past that. However, the armor protection on modern warships is pretty trivial. There isn’t really much point to heavily armoring them if they aren’t going to be exchanging salvos with each other in surface gunnery duels. ---
**Author:** ![puppygod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@puppygod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puppygod)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2009, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/139 "2009-02-21T11:18:33Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > I’ve no doubt that it would be and is likely done to provide protection of vital areas such as magazines. Just to note it though, protection designed against HEAT or HESH warheads would be pretty pointless for a warship. Penetration or spalling is a serious concern for a tank since the crew compartment is so small and could also easily reach the ammunition. On a warship, such weapons would just make a small hole in the side of the ship and likely kill anyone unfortunate enough to be in the compartment that was hit, but it would have no meaningful effect past that. > > However, the armor protection on modern warships is pretty trivial. There isn’t really much point to heavily armoring them if they aren’t going to be exchanging salvos with each other in surface gunnery duels. I think it’s matter of scale. Anti-tank weapons mostly have warheads in the range of, say 2 - 20 kg. They don’t have to make massive damage - they just need to penetrate armor and do little _poof_ inside to incapacitate crew or set ammo and fuel on fire. To do something against ship you need a lot more - if only because of size of ship. So anti-ship missile warheads starts around 200 kg and often weight more. Add weight of whole missile, multiply it by missile speed and you have far more energy than needed to penetrate armor of most current ships. And then you make warhead explode. Just sheer scale of anti-ship weapons make it unnecessary to use high-end armor piercing techniques - as far as I know, no anti-ship weapon have HEAT warhead, not to mention tandem etc. And if weapons have no specialized anti-armor properties, you don’t need specialized armor against them. Composite or chobham that would dissipate jet, shockwave or fragment DP penetrator would have no use - and would cost very much to cover whole hull. Covering hull with active armor plates would be not only expensive, but also cause innumerable problems with keeping it operational in harsh conditions, additional risk for crew etc. And still wouldn’t do much when missile weighting ton or more hit you at mach speed. Maybe cause it to explode millisecond earlier. Now, if - big IF - we ever face return of battleships, then we could expect development of armor piercing anti-ship missiles. Say, with tandem warhead where primary HEAT make hole in the hull, and secondary HE-I warhead explode inside moment later. But until then - anti-tank weapon vs. tank armor race as seen on land is simply unnecessary on seas. It’s all about not getting hit rather than surviving hit. Hence active defense systems. That’s what matters. ---
**Author:** ![Disgusting](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e495f1/32.png) [@Disgusting](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Disgusting)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2009, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860/140 "2009-02-21T11:49:48Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Battleships are a complete waste of money. So is the rest of the U. S. Navy. so is most of the U. S. military. As for President Washington’s quote there, he 's wrong. Preparing for war does not preserve peace. It preserves war. > > Consider this for a moment. Suppose that America spent $500,000,000,000 dollars a year on its military, and that military just sat around year after year without doing anything. What would happen? Obviously the American taxpayers would wonder why they were spending so much money on an institution that accomplished nothing. They would would demand that the military budget be cut. > > There are powerful interests who are interested in maintaining a large military. Those would include the actual soldiers, the commanders, companies that contract with the military, and politicians who want to brag about how much they spend on the military. Since these people don’t want budget cuts, the result is obvious: war. We’ll go to war for the purpose of justifying our large military. Indeed, since the creation of a standing army in the 1840’s, America has been going to war with remarkable regularity. Sometimes the war came to us, but that hasn’t happened since 1945. Since that time, it’s always been us going out of our way to start the war. > > Of course I do not mean to suggest that everyone who supports any war does so just to justify a large military. I merely mean that for some people, including some powerful people, a large military provides an incentive to lean in that direction. Shrink the military, and you’ll get fewer wars. > > Consider the Second Iraq War. Having a large military was a necessary condition for starting that war. If our military was a more reasonable size, we wouldn’t have gone to war, and a million lives would have been saved. > > Personally, I think that the U. S. military could be reduced by ninety percent. This would also have another obvious advantage: it would save money. We’ve agonized over the $400,000,000,000 deficits for the past few years, but few people realize that we could have had balanced budgets if we weren’t spending all that money on the military. Even in our current crisis, trimming the military could take us half the distance to a balanced budget. Those that beat their swords into plowshares will use them to grow food for those who don’t. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bring-back-the-battleships/485860.md?page=8)