Well… why did they decommission all the big battleships that were so crucial during WWII? Did cruise milssiles put them out of business?
From this site:
"The invasion of neighboring Kuwait by Iraqi dictator Sadam Hussein in February 1991 postponed the fate of USS Missouri (BB 63) and USS Wisconsin (BB 64). The big guns of the two battleships hammered at land targets in Kuwait in support of the Allied ground offensive. Iraq agreed to a cease fire agreement on Feb. 28, 1991.
But the cost of operating these ships, the labor-intensive manning, and the more modern, more powerful cruisers and destroyers of today’s Navy led to their final decommissioning as well. The last battleship on active duty was USS Missouri (BB 63) decommissioned Mar. 31, 1992. In the 21st century, there are no battleships in the United States Navy."
As noted, they’re expensive to maaintain and operate. And we can do just about anything we might ask a battleship to do by cheaper means. Their last use was as floating artillery, and the objective of a long-range artillery barrage can be accomplished with aircraft and cruise missiles.
But they’re neat to look at and crawl around on; if there’s one open to the public near you, give it a visit.
It may not be quite as cut-and-dried as laid out so far, and opinions vary (and may get heated).
Lest someone from the previous discussion come back to resurrect all the earlier arguments, I will note that we already had a pretty thorough go-round on this topic some time back. It started as GQ, but got sent into GD. It is a pretty good read with a lot of information. (I don’t think we want to try it again, however).
It’s real simple:
A sixteen-inch shell from an Iowa-class can travel aorund 22 to 25 miles and can pretty much carry just explosives.
For this, we need a huge boat, three to ten people to fire each gun and a thousand more to run the ship.
On the other hand, a Tomahawk fired from an Aegis-class destroyer (missile frigate?) can go some 600 miles and can carry a single warhead (up to and including nuclear, I believe) or multiple submunitions (self-deploying mines, cluster munitions) and even nonlethal payloads like the carbon-tape dispensers used to short out electrical substations without actually blowing them up.
For this we need 700 men, a smaller, faster, less expensive ship and without the massive turrets we still have enough room for a couple million watts’ worth of air-combat radar and an antisubmarine helicopter.
We will probably never again see ship-to-ship gunbattles in these days of long range missiles and high-performance air power. The old battleships are poor canidates for refit to missile boats (since most of their structure is designed and built around the massive, heavily-armored turret barrettes) so they’re decommissioned.
Well, admittedly, one issue that came up in the past (no, not on the linked thread - I haven’t looked at that) after the Sheffield bought it during the Falklands War was that our Iowa-class BBs were, unlike modern thin-skinned ships such as the Sheffield, heavily armored and thus likely to be able to survive hits by modern anti-ship missiles designed to sink modern ships.
Well, that’s great, but still, what do you use a battleship for?
Well, they’re pretty impressive to look at…but other then that and the giant yet not very useful guns, not really useful.
Which is exactly why they have anti-missile systems built right in.
I have read that aircraft carriers and their planes were actually much more crucial and effective in WWII than battleships. If I remember the source, it’s the Oxford Essential Guide to World War II. I will try and remember to look this up when I get home today.
Friday13
I own some land on a small lake and I’d like to have a battleship. God, whould that be neat to stand up in the captain’s tower and blow Ski-Doers out of the water.
Upkeep cost was a critical element. Some of those spares just aren’t made any more. And even if you ditch OEM, these vessels were launched in 1943/44 and that shows, sooner or later. There’s only so many bolt-on upgrades or ripping out of innards to cram in new stuff that you can do before it’s no longer cost-effective.
Also, between the Korean War and their reactivation in the middle of the Reagan administration, the four Iowa-class battleships were in reserve, not sailing the seas, being activated only briefly during the Vietnam War for shore bombardments. BTW, notice: only four! The other WW2 battlewagons were paid off as obsolete early in the poswar.
The cost concerns, as noted before this post, must be enormous. But think about it from a combat perspective - a battleship is way too big to fit into the U.S.'s current “hit hard, hit fast” strategy (that’s the plan with modern tank tactics) in both sheer mass and men. America’s current crop of destroyers and cruisers have more ability to blow stuff up (in terms of accuracy of shells and efficiency of explosives) than the much larger battleships, and can move faster both getting out of port and across the water.
Another thought is that ships fighting ships doesn’t happen much anymore. When a single well-placed shell WILL incapacitate or destroy a vessel, it’s not militarily interesting to have battleships fighting eachother.
Battleships were already nearing obsolesence in WWII. The main purpose of a battleship is to destroy other ships. A battleship carries heavy long range guns to destroy smaller ships, but is protected by heavy armor against the guns that smaller ships can carry. And a battleship can engage smaller ships at longer ranges, and can sink other ships before they can reply with their smaller guns.
But submarines and aircraft could attack the battleship, and the battleship’s heavy guns would be useless. If you add more AAA to the battleship to defend against aircraft you have to remove the guns. And the most effective anti-air defense isn’t AAA, it is your own air superiority aircraft. So carrier aircraft can attack battleships with near impunity, and carrier aircraft protect the carrier itself against enemy aircraft. And if you are defending against submarines you want lots of small patrol boats or destroyers who can cover more area for search. For the same price 10 destroyers are much more effective against submarines than 1 battleship.
But in WWII ships still used guns, and a battleships heavy guns could still be used effectively. But nowadays missiles have much greater ranges than guns do. A missile cruiser could attack a battleship well outside the range of the battleship’s guns. Yes, a battleship’s heavy armor makes them more survivable, and you could arm the battleship itself with missiles. But that negates the point of the battleship. You don’t need a heavier and heavier ship to carry heavier and heavier weapons when you are using missiles…even smaller ships can fire missiles. And rather than absorbing more missiles than the other guy and surviving them, it would be more effective to attack the enemy first and sink him before he can send those missiles in the first place. If you’re at the point of absorbing missile strikes you’re already likely to be dead.
So modern naval warfare means reconaissance (by aircraft launched from aircraft carriers) so you can find the enemy, long range radars, quick fire control, and long range missile and aircraft attacks. No ship would ever get within range of the battleship’s guns, since they can attack at longer range.
And of course, nowadays no navy in the world can compete with the US navy. The British navy may be as effective ship for ship, but they are much smaller. The other european powers have much smaller and less professional navies than the British. The Russian navy has largely rusted away since Soviet days. The Chinese navy is largely organized for coastal defense and doesn’t have much blue-water capability. And the various other third world countries might have a few coastal patrol boats armed with missiles, and maybe a few submarines, and some land based patrol aircraft.
In any case, the only navies that could compete head to head with the US navy are allied european powers, and they are much smaller than the US navy, even when combined. Third world countries going up against the US navy wouldn’t even try to attack with ships…they’d use land based aircraft and missiles, suicide patrol boats, and mines. Even if guns were still an effective weapon, the major role of the battleship is to destroy other capital ships. Since our projected enemies wouldn’t have any capital ships a battleship would be useless.
Says who? This could make a great new reality show.
You might want to take a look at the linked thread tomndebb provided. Battleships can be very useful. In non-wartime they are hideously expensive to operate so maybe the economics don’t play out but in a war they are excellent.
[ul]
[li]There are some technologies that would allow naval cannons (rifles?) to shoot far beyond 25 miles (the shell has a small rocket motor).[/li][li]I forget the statistics but 25 miles from shore puts more people within reach of a battleship’s guns than you might think…certainly not the majority but still significant.[/li][li]A shell from a battleship’s guns is FAR cheaper to fire than a Tomahawk missile.[/li][li]For sheer destructive power I think a shell from a battleship’s main battery is more powerful than a Tomahawk (exclusing nuclear).[/li][li]A battleship beats out anything for total volume of fire. In close support of ground troops you simply can’t pour enough missiles in fast enough compared to a battleship. I don’t even know if a naval missile can be used in close support anyway. Sometimes quantity has a quality all its own.[/li][li]A battleship is a floating machine shop capable of fabricating parts that to my knowledge no other vessle can manage (i.e. you can fix more in the field without waiting for something to be shipped around the world).[/li][li]IIRC the medical facilities on a battleship are second to none (barring a dedicated hospital ship but we have very few of those).[/li][li]Chances are a battleship could shrug off hits from most any missile existing today. Where the HMS Sheffield was sunk and the USS Stark was severly damaged a battleship would keep on rolling. Certainly they would take damage but they could remain as a fighting presence whereas nearly any other ship would be disabled, if not sunk, from only a single hit. Battleships are insanely tough (just look at what it took to sink the Bismarck…at least three torpedoes and 300-400 shells and even then it is assumed she was scuttled by the crew at the end).[/li][/ul]
In short they are more cost effective than one might suppose at first glance.
One other thing…
Keep in mind the best use for a battleship. It is not as a naval attack vessle tasked with destroying other ships. Think of a battleship as floating artillery. If you are a Marine about to wade ashore with defenders waiting for you then you want a battleship at your back…not an Aegis Missile Cruiser.
Different ships…different roles. No one ship can do it all. With the retiring of the BBs I do not think there is anything left in our arsenal that could be considered sea-borne artillery. What our aircraft can achieve these days with precision guided weapons is amazing but two Iraqi wars have shown that in the end you need ground troops to go in and the ground troops in both cases have been supported by artillery (land based). Reports from surrendering Iraqis (in the first war at least) didn’t speak in awe of laser guided bombs. They were in awe…downright terrorized… of the “steel rain” (to use one phrase an Iraqi supposedly used) of artillery. I don’t think infantry would like to try and do their job without it and a battleship is still the most powerful artillery you can find these days.
Agreed, but only where the target is within range of a battleship. They couldn’t have done much in Iraq, for example, where cruise missiles (although undoubtedly more expensive and with less explosive “volume”) could.
This could change if we ever develop highly effective defenses against missiles. Having to travel 50 miles to target could then prove a severe disadvantage. It would give too much time for the defenses to act.
This isn’t too big an “if.” Missiles are complicated and therefore have potentially more ways to fail. In that case, good old artillery might make a comeback.
As for ship-to-ship fighting, we just haven’t had to go up against a major naval power recently. If we had to, say, defend Taiwan against China, we would probably see some real naval battles again.
Excellent points… buuuut…
-I haven’t heard that, although a discarding sabot/subcaliber projectile can also exceed the range of the full shell by a considerable distance.
However, in both cases the warhead- the explosive payload- is reduced. In the rocket-assist shell, space in the shell is lost to the motor. In a subcaliber shell (think the DU “Silver Bullet” Abrams tank rounds) the volume for explosives is reduced even further.
In any case, even doubling the range of the shell still only equals half the range of a Harpoon antiship missile, or a twelfth the range of a Tomahawk.
Also keep in mind that you can’t put a Battleship right on the beach, either. In WW2, a lot of those little islands (Okinawa, Iwo Jima) had multiple coral reefs extending miles out to sea from the actual dirtside shoreline.
Getting close to the beach also puts your ship well within the hundred-mile range of shore-based missile batteries.
True, but it takes a huge, costly ship to fire them. Almost any plane we have, including the prop-driven P3, can fire a Harpoon, and the smaller ships (of which we have more) can’t fire sixteen-inch shells. Submarines can fire Harpoons and Tomahawks and are all but immune to shore-based missile and artillery batteries.
That’s iffy. I think it’s part of your “quantity over quality” though, which I agree. Continuous bombardment plays havoc with morale, whereas missile attacks come in waves wherein you have time to do things in between (usually run for cover, but sometimes shoot back.)
Actually, the Carriers beat the Battleships both here and with the “hospital” claim. Carriers have more room, more stores, more people and a convenient, built-in delivery system.
Actually, the “Steel rain” was from MLRS, multiple-launch rocket systems. The big tracked vehicles with the box-launchers on the back.
What was it, 12 missiles per launcher, two minutes to reload and 12 more, each missile carrying something like 700 submunitions (basically individual mortar shells) that were ejected above the target to sprinkle down.
So in three minutes one vehicle could put over sixteen thousand submunitions on a target area- THIS is what they feared; nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.
Related question (so I’m putting it here rather than in another thread):
Histories of WWII regularly refer to battleships v. cruisers (and I can understand the distinction there) but also to “battle cruisers” that appear to have been approximately the displacement of most battleships and to “pocket battleships” (Panzerschiffen) of about the displacement of a large cruiser. So what exactly draws the line between these four categories of capital ship?