Bring back the battleships

Great Debates
81

On the aircraft carrier v. aircraft cruiser debate, the USN looked in to that very question way back in the 1920’s.

As manned aircraft grew more capable (longer range, better payload, more reliable engines, etc.), the Navy wanted to know whether it would be better to build a bunch of “cruiser carriers”, or fewer (and larger) flush deck ships.

The War College game-theoried the hell out of that question. And they came to the conclusion that few, larger ships were better than more smaller ones. Now, the folks at the Naval War College were (and are) a whole lot smarter than me, but I will try to recall what some of the conclusions were:

  1. Fewer hulls means those hulls can be better protected by the escorts. (It’s easier to form a defensive screen, for AAA or ASW, around four hulls than eighty.)

  2. A larger hull is, itself, more resistant to damage (bomb, torpedo, mine, shell, accidental fires) than a smaller one. Yeah, you can go “full Musashi” and overwhelm any anti-torpedo protection scheme, but I am talking about absorbing one or two hits.

  3. A larger hull means they have more volume available to devote to repair shops, spare parts, ammo, food, fuel, etc., which means that that ship can stay on station longer.

  4. Sea keeping. A larger hull means it is able to handle heavier seas better. It can maintain higher speeds in heavier sea states, and still conduct operations. This might seem like a minor advantage, maybe, but Admirals tend to be of a more cautious mindset.

I agree that unmanned aircraft will probably continue to grow in capability, I don’t see the need for a ship devoted solely to [drone] aviation tasks going away.

The Carrier Debate: From 1922 to Now - USNI News (To show the debate continues.)

82

I would have thought that the main advantage of larger hulls is that they have more runway to launch and land larger planes. Larger planes have more potential in terms of range, flight ceiling, payload, EW and speed.
People who doubt that aircraft carriers aren’t much more useful than battleships should look into the concept of radar horizon and how altitude affects it. There are even handy radar horizon calculators online: http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm

83

Larger carriers can also carry more planes. That lets you mix and match the right kinds of planes for the kinds of missions you expect to have them fly: ground attack, air superiority, refueling, surveillance, etc.

84

To be fair to the battleships, they began adding spotter seaplane launching systems to them. There was this crane, and it could lower a seaplane into the water to fly up and spot for the battleships’ guns.

The technical problems with sending a camera up on a drone are a lot less than sending an aircraft loaded with enough bombs to do real damage. Also, spotting drones don’t have to be high performance aircraft since they don’t have to fly much faster than the ship itself. So you could have a bunch of small VTOL spotting drones or something if you were trying to make a futuristic battleship (they’d launch off a small platform somewhere on the warship).

And you’d upgrade it’s main guns to railguns for 200 miles of range, theoretically. The problem is that 200 miles is still a lot less than carrier aviation, and I feel like a futuristic ship loaded down with missiles, spotting drones, railguns, and defensive lasers but lacks armor plating is still not a battleship - it’s some kind of cruiser.

85

Why would you need drones and such? Remember, this ship would be part of a carrier battle group, not operating on it’s own (there are also those satellite thingies up there to help with the spotting). Again, you seem to be thinking in terms of what a battleship was 70 years ago (hell, even the retread battleships we brought out of mothballs weren’t used in this way, but were part of a larger task group or battle group). This seems to be locked into everyone’s mind, however, so you aren’t alone. To me, it’s like saying that today’s destroyers aren’t really destroyers and we shouldn’t call them destroyers because they aren’t even close to the same as the destroyers in WWII. That’s just silly. Yet a battleship apparently HAS to be slow, heavily armored ships with large 16" or 18" guns mounted on big turrets that can only be used for shore bombardment at ranges less than 30 miles or to fight against other ships old school…and obviously, that image is completely outdated so we dunn neeeed no stinkin’ battleships!

ETA: Btw, cruisers in WWII were also much different than today’s cruisers, so why would you want to call such a ship a ‘cruiser’??

86

In the scheme of things, one stealth submarine with nuclear tipped torpedoes could destroy a “modern” battleship in no time at all. In fact, in WW2, a USN sub sank the only battle ship sunk by a sub in that war, the Japanese battleship Kongo. Big ships are fast becoming an endangered species.

87

It’s what the ship the OP is talking about when he talks about bringing back the battleship, and is almost invariably what thread start threads such as these mean when they talk about battleships and wanting to bring them back (except the slow part, 28kts+ was the norm in the last battleships built): heavily armored warships with main battery of very large caliber turreted guns. The entomology of the word battleship comes from line-of-battle ship, or a ship of the line; in the days of sail a ship that was large enough and bore enough cannon to stand a place in the line of battle and trade broadsides in a fleet engagement.

88

Ok, fair enough. But consider the difference between the old 1st rate ships of the line and an Iowa or other WWII era battleship and note how they varied and then consider that a real modern battleship would be as different from an Iowa as an Iowa was from a ship of the line in form and function.

(and yeah, the Iowa calls battleships were considered fast battleships, well able to keep up with the rest of the fleet)

89

Maybe a modern battleship would be like the Zumwalt or Ticonderoga class, just doubly larger?

90

:smack: I can’t believe I forgot that point.

Yes, that is a (if not THE) main advantage in large v. small hull carriers.

91

If anything makes me think that a heavily armored ship isn’t coming back, it’s those rail guns. It’s going to be very difficult to come up with armor that will protect against the penetrators one of those could fling (or indeed any defensive strategy from one). It seems the only real way to defend against them would be to become harder to spot than your enemy; and be built low, fast and hard to hit.

So, yeah maybe an upscaled Zumwalt, or an upgraded Ticonderoga. If they were going to armor anything, it’d probably be the first true all-or-nothing armor. Just armor the things that would blow up the ship from the inside if struck by fragments of those penetrators, possibly enough armor to protect those items from a direct hit. Anything else is going to lead to a big heavy slug of a ship that a sub will have no problem hitting.

With today’s targeting computers and guided artillery, the advantage of having a platform bigger than a cruiser for stability’s sake when aiming probably isn’t that great. IIRC, I think the Zumwalt does clever things like take on ballast to stabilize itself before firing its guns. At any rate, the rail gun is supposed to be cheap and small compared to a missile, so you can fling lots of shots (around 110mi, so a little bit farther than Dallas to Waco) and still be ahead cost and storage wise compared to missiles.

One thing feasible rail guns would probably bring back is something like the three-gun turret. One of the problems with the rail gun is heat, and one method of tackling that would be having more tubes…err rails, to fire from.

92

And as far as protecting a ship from a nuke, it’s just not practical. The ships at ground zero of either of the fission devices used at Operation Crossroads didn’t fare well at all. But that’s pretty much beside the point. Even ships like the Nagato, that had extensive damage before they were placed less than a kilometer from a nuke, were incredibly radioactive. It took five days to sink after being indirectly nuked twice. You kind of would have to use a nuke for each ship that you wanted to sink, unless they were moored near each other. But making it horribly radioactive is enough to make it useless as a ship.

93

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.

The above from my previous post: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10864377&postcount=151

The Japanese battleship Yamato took 10 Torpedoes and 7 bomb hits to sink (380 planes went after it). Nothing is survivable when you try that hard to sink a single target. Can any military throw 380 planes at once at one target today?

In addition to above think of the battleship as a mobile artillery platform. Ask any marine if they’d rather have a drone with some missiles at their back or artillery when attacking a position. If you are trying to land troops on a defended beach there is probably nothing better than a battleship to have at your back.

Granted BB guns on an Iowa Class can’t hit that far but point being there is plenty within range of their guns. IIRC (and I may be wrong) during either the Korean or Vietnam war sending a battleship up near their coastline was enough cause the opposing side to agree to come to the negotiating table as long as the ship was withdrawn. They are terrifying if you are within range of their guns. Terrifying in a way no missile cruiser can be.

Add in that shells are comparatively cheap A Tomahawk Cruise Missile costs over $1 million. I’d be surprised in a BB main gun shell cost even $10,000 but let’s say they cost $20,000 each. That is 50 shots per one Tomahawk. Starts looking costs effective and it can shoot all day long rather than what…a few volleys from a missile cruiser?

All that said Battleships are incredibly expensive ships to build and require a massive amount of steel (as in a substantial percentage of a big country’s yearly steel output). I would also imagine a modern one would be nuclear powered.

If we had anything like a WWII scenario where we had to make regular invasions via beaches then a BB would make a lot of sense. I do not think we live in that world anymore though.

They may not even work as a means to instill terror because I doubt few alive remember what it is like to be pummeled by one. No one would know enough to be pissing in their pants.

94

What makes a ship a “battleship” or a “cruiser” or a “destroyer”? The thing is, the jobs that back in WWII used to be done by cruisers or battleships are now done by ships called “destroyers”. Modern destroyers are as large as WWII style cruisers.

So what makes a ship a “battleship”? It has to have heavy armor, otherwise it’s not a battleship but a battlecruiser. It has to have heavy armament. It has to be big.

If we asking if there could be a role for naval ships that aren’t carriers that are really big, well, maybe. But the thing is, there’s no role for “heavy armor” anymore. Everyone knows the famous Monitor vs Merrimack battle, where the first two steam ironclads pounded each other for hours and were unable to inflict significant damage against each other. Armor was much more effective than the weapons a warship could carry.

But that’s not the case today. Torpedoes and missiles and bombs make a mockery of armor. There is absolutely no role for a heavily armored warship in a modern navy, if by “heavily armored” we mean able to sit within range of the enemy’s weapons and trade direct hits. No modern ship is capable of that given modern weapons.

Modern tanks and modern infantry are the same way. A modern first-world main battle tank cannot absorb direct hits from a modern main battle tank cannon. The armor is designed to protect against lesser threats, from obsolete tanks, RPGs, and so on. Of course a modern tank would count as a superheavy tank by WWII armor and firepower standards, except with the mobility of a light tank. Even a Bradley IFV could chew the hell out of WWII tanks. But we don’t call a Bradley a tank, even though if you put it on the battlefield in WWII it could perform the mission of a tank.

So same thing with naval vessels. A upgunned large destroyer can perform the missions that a WWII battleship would perform, but we aren’t going to call it a battleship, and it will differ in never even trying to have the heavy armor of a battleship. If you want missiles or guns or drones or torpedoes, we can stuff all that onto a big destroyer.

The point of a battleship is that if you have a really big gun you need a really big ship to carry the gun. And with that big a ship carrying that big a gun, you might as well slather on as much armor as possible. Battleships couldn’t carry enough armor to defend against other battleships, only enough to protect them against smaller guns. If you leave off the armor you have a battlecruiser, a ship that carries the heavy weapons of the battleship but without the armor. But with modern weapons you don’t need a bigger boat to carry a bigger weapon. The cannon main batteries of battleships and cruisers are obsolete. If you want to attack an enemy fleet you can’t sail up to it and pound it with cannon, you’ll be dead long before you get within range. Enemy airplanes, missiles, and torpedoes will sink your fleet while you’re still over the horizon. So your cannons are useless, throw them away. With no giant cannon, then there’s no need for a giant boat to carry the giant cannon. And so two out of three of the defining characteristics of a battleship–big and heavily armored–are useless.

You can have an extremely heavily armed ship, you just wouldn’t call it a battleship. And in fact, our modern naval “destroyers” are exactly this kind of ship.

95

In today’s terms ‘heavy armor’ means not getting hit, so I think that a modern battleship doesn’t equal ‘lot’s of heavy armor’ but lots of ECM and ASW and active and passive defenses to keep those torpedoes and missiles from hitting it, not standing there and taking a punch because that’s what we did in our fathers day. Same goes for having to have a big gun…just because they used to have them a long time ago doesn’t mean we still have to do it that way today.

You are right that today, destroyers filled many of the roles that were filled by much larger ships back in the day, as today’s cruisers fill different roles and are armored and gunned very differently. Which is the point about sticking to a single concept of what a battleship is or isn’t based on what it was 70 years ago.

Why not, especially if it were bigger than today’s destroyers or cruisers? The only reason I can think of is because if we call it a destroyer folks won’t automatically jump to the conclusion it’s obsolete based on a name and their 70 year old image of what that name implies. :stuck_out_tongue:

96

That is simply not true.

The USS Stark (frigate) was hit by two Exocet missiles, one exploded and the other did not but started a fire. The ship was heavily damaged.

The HMS Sheffield (destroyer) was hit by one Exocet missile that did not explode either but caused a fire that ultimately finished the ship.

A battleship would largely shrug such hits off and would certainly remain mission capable after such a hit.

And your example with modern main battletanks is informative. If armor was such a worthless addition no one would do it. If it was so easy to defeat armor no one would do it (beyond minor armor sufficient to shrug off small arms fire).

The Bismarck took 300-400 hits and while smashed many think she was ultimately scuttled rather than sank. The only severe damage coming from other battleship main guns. The several hundred hits from other guns (still substantial…waaaay beyond small arms) didn’t do much in the way of sinking her.

Armor still counts.

Here is a 17" thick steel door on a battleship. It’s gonna take a lot to get through that.

97

I think we are missing the point that the battleship doesn’t have to be at the bottom of the ocean to be ineffective. All the enemy really needs is a mission kill. If you take out some combination of it’s fire control, communications and radar, then it doesn’t matter if it still floats. It’s ineffective.

While Stark did not sink due to the heroic efforts of the damage control parties on the ship, it was 100% out of the fight (not that there was one). The same would be applied to Sheffield and Bismarck if they would have survived.

98

A few things: first, the most significant anti-ship missiles that the U.S. would be concerned about have warheads twice as large as an Exocet. Secondly, it is assumed that against any valuable target, and adversary would be launching large numbers of missiles. That simply wasn’t a great concern 30 years ago, but missiles have gotten relatively cheaper and far more capable during the time since Iraq bought it’s crappy Exocets.

Moreover, the latest threat - anti ship ballistic missiles - are especially concerning because US missile defense systems quite simply don’t do as well against Mach 4 warheads as compared to subsonic cruise missiles.

But this still goes back to the same question: take a ship and load it up with enough armor to counter every anti ship missile in the world. Make it a giant steel cube that is 25 feet think in every direction. Why do we need that armored thing just to have giant guns that float?

99

Force Projection.

We can send our carriers anywhere in the world and launch hundreds of sorties against anything within a few hundred miles of water. Which is most places.

100

I disagree. Ships can and do repair themselves at sea. Look at the USS Yorktown in the Battle of Midway. She was heavily damaged but repaired herself so quickly and effectively that a second wave Japanese attack planes assumed she was a different ship. She remained in the fight till the end.

Battleships, as noted, had substantial and robust machine shops on board. They can fabricate a great deal without calling home.

It is doubtful a single (or even several) Exocet would do much more than inconvenience a battleship and cause relatively minor damage. Maybe there are some lucky shot points, Achille’s Heel if you prefer, but on the whole battleships are tough as nails. Tougher. Again, look at the absolute pounding Bismarck took or the Yamato.