One that I can think of off the top of my head and the closest thing to a battleship in that conflict was also one of its first casualties.
You’ll note the prevalence of missiles. Particularly instructive is the case of the Eilat (HMS Zealous (R39) - Wikipedia), a destroyer sunk by two missile boats 25 times smaller in tonnage with missiles with twice the range of a battleship’s 16’’ guns.
The reason why battleships made sense was range. If you want longer ranged guns, you have the make the projectile bigger. At some point, you need the make the gun bigger then the ship bigger until you get a battleship.
The thing about jet and rocket propulsion is that the payload and range of the munition is largely independent of the size, weight and power of the launching platform. Add guidance and accuracy is largely independent of range. So you can have tiny platforms punching far above their weight.
So far from being a raison d’etre that marines don’t even do it anymore. Even carriers don’t have MARDETs these day. Force protection and security aboard ship are handled by US Navy sailors now. It’s been that case since the 90s I believe, though my memory only goes back to 2005.
Disclaimer (mostly for others): Yes marines still sometimes deploy aboard Navy amphibs as a Marine Expeditionary Unit. That is not what we’re talking about, though.
And you will note they all had effectively no armor.
They tried battlecruisers with BB guns and cruiser armor. It didn’t work well. Being well armored worked.
See HMS Hood or a bunch of ships in WWI at the battle of Jutland.
And to be clear, a BB in modern times is not meant to be a ship killer.
It is meant to be mobile artillery. They also, at least in WWII, had some of the best medical services available and were floating machine shops capable of manufacturing parts needed to fix units in the field.
In fact, 120 million to 1,6 bilion is 140 times cheaper…not 14.
What?
Show your math.
oh sorry, you meant 1,6 .10^9? apologies, billion means differently in my native langage
You’re right 1BB= 14 planes
That was after my time working w the Navy. Good update. Thank you.
Thought that was a byproduct of the Navy getting rid of their tactical nuke stuff like ASROC, and the carriers no longer carrying B61s? I had thought the rubric was, ‘Have special weapons, see Marines as guards.’
Though obviously some subs carry strategic nukes, and though I’d have to dig out my copy of Big Red to double check, special security duties underway are handled by Sailors, not Marines too, right?
On the larger topic of Marines and landings, it was my impression that, pre NSC-48 and mainly the Korean War experience, calling out the US Army for deployment was a Really Big Deal. Involving Congress, maybe declaring war, lots of activity. Whereas the Marines, being part of the Navy, and underway some of the time anyway, could be sent here and there without nearly the controversy or hassle. No need to storm the beach, simply pulling up to the pier and offloading a company or two of Marines and their attached equipment, would be enough to let, e.g., Nicaragua know that United Fruit was really serious about the whole ‘get back to work’ thing.
Now with air transport, and a public much more used to seeing a large standing Army deployed where needed, the unique force projection capability the Marines provided, isn’t as unique anymore. Though even a MEU (a Marine reinforced battalion with supporting arms elements) likely provides superior military capability all by itself, than the intrinsic militaries of, what, 80 to 90 percent of the countries on Earth?
Maybe not quite 80%, but once the MEU dials 911 there’s a lot of response that will overwhelm damn near anybody anywhere.
Though certainly not instantly enough to necessarily prevent a mass casualty event for the MEU if the political leadership / top brass was foolish enough to send them into a situation way over their head that turned real hot in a hurry.
Keep the arguments in mind.
Elmer Fudd said he couldn’t believe we’re still arguing about the value of a weapons system that no military has seen fit to build since Pearl Harbor. You replied “How many naval battle have their been since the end of WWII?” and I showed you.
So, is it about armor in naval battles or as ship-based artillery?
I think others have addressed the effectiveness of armor against modern missiles (or at least, they usually do in threads like this).
As for ship-based artillery, that gives you a very short range to your supporting fire compared to planes and missiles. If you’re using it against a peer, do you think your battleship will get within 40km of their shores while they’re able to fight? Against a non-peer, why is it so important to have so many guns for coastal bombardment when, if you really must use guns, destroyers’ have them? Do you picture sea-based invasions of the future as looking like Saving Private Ryan’s opening scene?
You mention the number of maintenance hours per flight hour for aircraft. Have you considered the number of labor hours required to operate a battleship, especially for all the years it won’t actually be used as mobile artillery?
Justifying a battleship based on its use as a hospital ship or repair ship is grasping at straws.
I’m really confused about Whack’s argument here. Battleship guns have effective ranges about an order of magnitude too short for any modern engagement. I don’t agree that fleets are irrelevant, even in the day of ship-killing missiles. It’s true they are not invulnerable, but that doesn’t mean irrelevant any more than soldiers are irrelevant because the other guy has guns, too. Having a weapon is one thing; using it is another.
Even if we do create heavily armored ships, there’s simply no reason to use the Battleship as a template anymore. In the future, we aren’t going to see massive broadsides anytime soon. If ships have guns, they’re likely to be railguns with ranges far exceeding any conventional armament, missiles or hybrid guided projectiles that can use traditional guns but again, don’t rely on broadsides. Whack is also being a bit odd in counting all the support requirements or minor downsides of every possible alternative, but completely ignoring those of Battleships.
Perhaps that was the last straw, I don’t know, but as LSLGuy noted, it was historically the norm for ships to have Marines aboard, and even in the age of steam and beyond, Cruiser-sized vessels or larger would have them as part of the ship’s regular compliment. The idea of the MEU and purpose-built amphibious assault-type vessels didn’t yet exist (*I’m actually not sure when the idea of a standing MEU came about, I see that of those still around today, one traces its ancestry back to 1967, the others to the 1970s or later).
Historically, when they put together some marines for a raiding party they would (1) draw them from the ships and (2) quite often supplement them with Navy sailors.
*I literally just found out about this thing called the Advanced Base Force which was established in the early 20th century and sounds like a precursor to the MEU concept. And then of course amphibious landings with purpose-built ships to carry marines became the norm during WWII. This article discusses how MARDETs continued to be included aboard ships through WWII, and what they would do, at least in the Atlantic and Mediterranean (it’s not clear if they bothered with shipboard MARDETs in the Pacific):
https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/npswapa/extcontent/usmc/pcn-190-003125-00/sec1.htm
What would amphibious operations look like today? What would coastal defenses look like? How would they be neutralized?
Correct. Marines are not used for guard duty aboard submarines.
I have occasionally seen Marine units attached to Navy shore bases to provide security, though.
It would depend on the coastline. Or if there even is a coastline. Count me among those who think a D-Day style landing is unlikely to occur ever again, if for no better reason than that defenders have had to give that model up (probably should have even prior to D-Day). It’d be like traveling back in time and asking someone how they would envision trench warfare going in the future or, for a more concrete example, how they might organize an assault against the Maginot line. That is, ideally, one would avoid ever being put in such a situation, and it just may be that advances in weapons and tactics since the last war (or 4-5 wars ago) have made that possible. And the fact that there are alternatives—that one really could come up with ways to bypass fixed coastal or inland defenses—might make it so that one never really has to entertain that question to begin with.
The goal for an amphibious operation would be for it to be unopposed if possible. How one would go about creating an environment where that is possible is anyone’s guess, and, again, would depend on who you’re going up against. There was a time when we thought nuclear weapons might be used to help establish a beachhead. Nowadays, if WWIII breaks out, nuclear weapons might just make amphibious operations seem quaint. Like a cavalry charge in the age of tanks and mechanized infantry.
FWIW, someone mentioned Afghanistan upthread. That actually was, no kidding, an amphibious assault. Against a country without a coastline. Spearheaded by special operations units and followed up by Marines of the 15th MEU. See: The 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit’s Seizure of Camp Rhino (PDF warning, about 3 mb).
As opposed to what?
Small cheap vehicles (land, sea, or air based) that can be deployed in large numbers and launch missiles and drones. Because they’re numerous, they’re harder to eliminate than a single target like a carrier or a battleship is.
Interesting. Thanks.