Yes, but the advantage of a battleship over just using aircraft to drop bombs is cost per ton delivered. Aircraft are in theory more expensive than a battleship sitting there shelling all day.
Well, with nukes, you only need to send 1 bomber, and that aircraft is a lot cheaper than the battleship is, and a lot faster. Just doesn’t make sense to use a shell.
The shell might still be useful if you have a battleship on station, but not a carrier. This was early enough that it probably wasn’t taken for granted yet that the flagship would always be a carrier.
Where these nuke shells able to be fired/fused for a proper airburst at long range? Or were they gonna be essentially ground bursts?
Btw, smithsb, I love reading these details! Thank you for sharing!
The nuke was a sideshow round for the battleship. That’s why it was dropped almost immediately. Nuclear, aircraft, and missile technology were rapidly advancing. Shore bombardment with conventional HE was the reason for keeping the ships around after WWII. The battleship was more accurate prior to the development of inertial/ir/laser/tv/gps guidance add-ons for bombs.
Later attempts to make battleships more relevant by adding Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles delayed the inevitable movement to museum pieces. We’ve had numerous threads on SDMB about bringing back battleships. It boils down to too many personnel operating a massive ship with too little return. A single mine or torpedo under the keel and it’s dead.
See post 10. According to “US Fast Battleships 1938–91: The Iowa class” by Lawrence Burr, Wisconsin, Iowa and New Jersey had their magazines modified. Only Missouri didn’t, and that ship passed into reserve again before the shells were ready. Wisconsin at least fired a dummy Mark 23 in a test. In “USS New Jersey” by Paul Stillwell the gunnery officer at the time recalled the NJ also having dummy Mark 23’s aboard but never actual nuclear shells to his knowledge.
The US had the battleships in operation for naval actions already, and it was their role in naval operations (including conventional shore bombardment) that justified the cost of keeping them in service. Since they were already in service, adding the nuclear capability only took the incremental cost of developing the shell and handling area, which wasn’t that much money, especially since the army had already done most of the work in designing nuclear artillery shells. At the time, artillery could deliver a weapon much more accurately than a bomber
You’re looking at it from the wrong perspective. It wasn’t ‘we’re going to reactivate the battleships as a nuclear weapons delivery system’, it was ‘we have these battleships, and we can add nuclear capability to them’. I think you’re also looking at it from a modern perspective where nuclear weapons are only considered strategic and guided missiles/bombs can put a payload through a specific window in a building, so even if you were using one tactically you wouldn’t need a close-in delivery system. This was a tactical weapon system developed when missile/bomb accuracy was closer to ‘correct town’ than ‘correct window in the building’.
Did the Iowas in the 1980’s carry nuclear tipped Tomahawks?
Thanks to all for the answers and especially smithsb.