Good saying.
There will be a time though.
Yes, I’m implying that a modern Nimitz class could take a pounding from WWII era American torpedoes comparable to a Yamato. Better steel, better compartmentalization. Agreed that the steel is not thick armor (I presume) and a lot of the weight is on the armored deck. A big reason torpedoes worked on the battleships is that water is not compressible and where there is an explosion, the steel will give first. Put air behind the outer layer of steel and have an inner layer or two and you can take multiple hits to the same ship, but not the same place on the ship.
Well - a better pounding from WWII era US torpedoes isn’t a good starting point. The Mark 14 was so horribly plagued by problems that curing one would just reveal that there was another problem that had been hidden by the one fixed that it was almost laughable if it wasn’t so tragic that submarine crews were risking thier lives on plagued torpedoes. A lot of the weight on US carriers post WW2 is due to the sheer size and volume of them. Not that it would be reliable, but a better metric would be l(lengthbeamheight)/displaced tonnage. Very inaccurate since it’s treating the ship as a square shaped object, but at the same time it’s probably closer to a sort of reliable metric by finding tonnage by volume rather than by length.
Compartmentalization was well understood as a defence against torpedoes by WW2, anti-torpedo blisters were used starting in WW1 and simply incorporating better designed compartmentaizationhad largely replaced in by the 1930’s since blisters would reduce speed.
Crapulance, accidentally submitted, so forgive the typos. It might be a bit of a tossup since no Nimitz or for that matter any post WW2 carrier has ever been sunk, but I’d place bets on the Nimitz for example sinking to the hits that Yamato and Mushashi took first.
The policy of the US Navy in regards to carrier weight (and armor) has generally always been, and remains, to spend the displacement weight on it’s air group, not armor.
From here: Armoured flight deck - Wikipedia
In terms of torpedo defence, compartmentalization is important, but it does not make a ship immune to damage. Depending where the torps hit (assuming no keel snapping), critical equipment may be rendered offline, making damage control/fire fighting much more difficult.
Compartmentalisation is also not a static feature, either. Over time, fittings become “looser”. Water tight seals no longer are. Seals around the hatches (compromised if the hatch is warped through heat or explosive exposure), pipes (every electrical, steam, water, fuel, etc, pipe going through a bulkhead is a potential for a leak), and ventilation ducts do not stay in perfect condition. As the ship sails through the seas, it’s whole frame flexes and twists. (God forbid the ship runs around on a sand bar or sumthin.) Part of a major refit process is supposed to address this problem. Never-the-less, old ships are leaky and creaky.
I served on the Ranger (CV-61), and I doubt that the ship would have needed anywhere near the Musashi’s numbers (of hits) to get sunk. (Musashi suffered 17 bomb and 19 torpedo hits in 5 raids.)
Agreed, the main idea of the USS Ranger was not to be hit.
We did have a fairly excellent torpedo belt though in the form of voids.
The duct work was exceptionally strong (as an EM I worked on said ducts.)
We actually did maintenance and checks on the pass throughs and they were somewhat flexible thanks to monkeyshit grey putty compound that was seen everywhere on the ship.
The generators were space out well and no one hit would take out more than one and we could balance the load and shut off non-vital systems to keep things running fine on 6 of the 8 generators. With the emergency diesels alone we could keep the fire pumps and other DC pumps going.
A carrier does not need the armor of the Musashi simply because the fleet concept is not engagement, but defense, including sacrificial defense of the Carriers. The entire fleet was connected into a defensive system by the Aegis cruisers and could hold off nearly any assault by any non-Nato nation except the Soviets unless it was by complete surprise. Even the Ranger’s onboard defenses were excellent by the time we were onboard. The defensive missile system (Seawiz IRC) was working well by the time we were on the West Pac and the Phalanx machine guns exceeded all expectations and did a great job in every test and occasionally too good of a job. The offensive weapons of the carrier fleet are the jets from her flight deck and maybe the submarines on escort duty.
I will yield to your more intimate knowledge of the condition of the water tight integrity below the main deck.
My experience is with the “fire tight” stuff just below the island, on the O3 level. Up there, things were a little more shoddy. We had a warped fire door. Lot’s of stuffing tubes were not smoke tight. Plenty of dust (which is flammable) inside duct works. I incorrectly allowed this to form my impression of the state of the ship as a whole. 
To the best of my memory of long ago I would agree with your assessment about the O3 Level and even say it was not anywhere near as good from the hangar bay up. I know the assumption was that we did not need to be watertight that far up and I can’t speak to the fire proofing, but I don’t recall doing much work or inspections on the O3 level. Up there my checks were for unsafe portable electrical equipment, hot fuse boxes and the Captain’s galley wiring. There were also some vital compartments where the checks were more thorough but I did not work in those areas much. Basically if we ran 400 hz to it though, the EMs ENs (chill-water gang) and HTs took better care to ensure the pass-throughs were secure.
Translation guide and some stray details:
EM = Electricians Mate
HT = Hull Techs (Welders/Plumbers)
EN = Enginemen (Chillwater, Diesels and other stuff I don’t recall)
O3 level = third floor above hangar bay. The one directly below the flight deck.
400 hz = Much of the advance electronics on the ship needed 400hz instead of 60 hz electrical power. We would transform it to 1000v to reduce amperage and send it up where it was transformed back to 450v and lower. Most of the ship was standard 60 hz 3 phase 450v and single phase 125v power.
mlees, I cannot remember, what was your rating or were you an officer? I was an EM3 when I left.
Data Systems Technician. (DS2) The DS’s have since been made into ET’s or FC’s (depending on the NEC).
Speaking of power (115 volt), I remember getting a few 15 inch desktop monitors we couldn’t use. It seems that shipboard power made both outside “prongs” hot in the standard looking three prong outlet. Fried a monitor this way. Heh.
That doesn’t sound right, especially as we had Zenith’s with little 12" Monitors (I think, could have been 14") that worked fine. I think you had a bad outlet. For 115v we just tapped (via a transformer) a single phase off the 450v three-phase power and there was one hot lead and if I recall correctly, the neutral was actually isolated from the ground.
*Damn it has been a long time if I am forgetting this stuff. *
Hmm. I got the info second hand from a senior chief. Does “delta power” mean much in this context?
I think many here are underestimating just how powerful a battleship was in shore bombardment.
In the first Desert Storm some Iraqis learned that the little unmanned drone plane was used as target spotting for the battleships. There is video of the Iraqis surrendering to that unmanned plane. Apparently bombardment from a battleship is psychological leagues past having a 2000 lb JDAM dropped on you. A corollary to this was in Afghanistan in the early days when we got there. Apparently there were some diehard fighters opposing us and all the smart missiles we threw at them did not dislodge them. They then had a B-52 carpet bomb the area and that was that…they gave up. Point being sometimes just a massive amount of ordinance can do things smart weapons cannot.
IIRC at some point during the Korean War we wanted to get the North Koreans to the negotiating table and they were refusing. We sailed (I think) two battleships off their cost and they positively freaked and said they would come to the table if the battleships were removed.
Further, battleships actually had some of the best if not the best hospital facilities in the fleet. I think the US only has one dedicated hospital ship currently. When you are on the front lines (or near enough) to the battle having a capable and large floating hospital close at hand is a good thing.
Add to that battleships are floating machine shops. Granted in this day of electronics that is somewhat less useful but the battleship was the closest thing to a mobile factory as you got. It was capable of manufacturing new parts for broken stuff (which happens a lot in war) on site. No need to wait for FedEx to deliver.
I also think people are underestimating their survivability. Yes a modern torpedo would likely nail one but then that is true of carriers too. We have assets in place to stop that (attack subs, frigates). Not too many countries can even field a respectable submarine force. Modern missiles would almost certainly just bounce off a battleship. A single Exocet sunk the HMS Sheffield by striking her amidships. The USS Stark took two Exocets and was badly damaged. A battleship would have largely shrugged both off and remained operational. Add in proper fleet defense and a battleship is very survivable. Consider the absolute pasting the German battleship Bismarck took and, while a smoking wreck by the end of it all, was actually still afloat and likely scuttled by her crew.
Also to those who think you need to skimp on armor to be fast are in error. Battleships are quite fast. Perversely the longer a ship is the faster it can go (called hull speed) so a battleship is one of the few things that can stay with a Carrier hauling ass around the ocean. In general they all go slower so the smaller ships can keep up.
Granted a battleship is a hugely expensive thing and may well not quite make sense today but do not belittle what they could do. Really there is no substitute and if you are a Marine storming a beach I doubt there is anything you’d rather have at your back.
I think the difference between the flattop and the BB would be that absent sinking , the Iowa’s at least nowadays would be effectively mission killed, while it would be worth it to put the carrier into drydock and repair it.
Declan
IIRC modern torpedoes explode under a ship causing a bubble to form into which the ship collapses (essentially breaking the spine of the ship which = dead ship). Not sure any warship can survive that although perhaps the sheer size of the carrier means the bubble is not big enough to cause this effect. I just do not know.
That said I am unsure how technically advanced torpedoes are worldwide. Presumably Western navies could build these and probably Russia. Maybe China. Anyone else? Particularly anyone we are likely to get in a shooting war with?
I think you seriously underestimate present day missiles.
For comparison:
16 inch Mark 8 APC artillery shell:
weight - 1215 kg
muzzle velocity - 820 m/s
range - 38 km
Modern BrahMos anti-ship missile:
weight - 2500 - 3000 kg
speed - 960 - 1030 m/s
range - 290 km
Trust me. It’s not gonna just bounce off.
Iran & Pakistan have subs.
(India can even build their own subs.)
The Russian Navy has a very advanced torpedo, which is much faster than any other in use. I have heard that it is so fast, thate evasive actions are useless.
Of course, this torpedo is credited with one sinking (the Russian Submarine “KURSK”)-it exploded inside the sub.
Wasn’t sure if it has been exported yet, but I saw it too: VA-111 Shkval - Wikipedia
Not really.
Remember that artillery shell is armor piercing and most of its weight is explosive whereas the missile is semi-armor piercing and only 300kg of it is explosive.
Granted after all that it was a wreck but that is astounding. Most of those hits were from smaller guns but plenty were from battleship class guns firing at close (for them) range.
The Japanese battleship Yamato took 10 Torpedoes and 7 bomb hits to sink (380 planes went after it).
Certainly a battleship would take damage from such missiles but almost certainly not take it out completely.
They are insanely tough ships.
Sure they have subs but how good are they? Iran has three Kilo Class subs (known for being exceptionally quiet) but supposedly relegated to laying mines mostly. Their crews are inexperienced.
Also, what torpedoes do they use?
Its binary , either vessel sinks or does not sink. The vessel could have been maneuvering at the time of detonation so the bubble only affects part of the ship.
My point was that if the iowa is damaged enough , its as good as sunk because its not worth the money to bring her into drydock , where as a carrier would be worth repairing.
Declan