The shells were separate from the charge so I’m unsure what you mean by ‘was the deterioration of the silk ammo bags used in the guns’. At any rate, while I still think there might be a role for battleship big guns in shore bombardment support type missions, I think you are right that they were obsolete when they were shown to be vulnerable to air craft. Certainly today I don’t see ballistic artillary being used again in Naval engagements…not in the age of missiles and torpedoes.
-XT
The Battleship that had the turret explosion was the Iowa, not the Jersey. Regardless, were we to have another world war I will bet you that the Jersey and Missouri will be reclaimed, the Iowa will be fixed and the Wisconsin taken out of mothballs. There are no better ships in the world for shore bombardment, and they’re cheap for what they do, what with the enhanced offensive systems (Tomahawks).
They’re still useful tools. Just not for fighting other ships.
Just popped in to say that my dad served proudly on the USS Wisconsin from 1944-1945. He was an anti-aircraft gunner, and still remembers “fondly” having to lie down and cover up every time those monstrous 16" guns were fired.
I remember reading a potboiler Clancy-style novel one time in which the Wisconsin pulverized massive gun emplacements inside Table Mountain, South Africa. Anybody remember that one?
Vortex, by Larry Bond. Great book!
There are some defense measures available against torpedos but not as much as you might think. Remember torpedoes can be wire guided to a target which makes them rather hard to fool. The best defense is detecting the sub ahead of time and chasing it off.
I agree that few other navies would be able to do as well against US ships as US subs do against them. That said remember an enemy sees a carrier battlegroup as a massively high-value target…especially the carrier(s) themselves. In the calculus of war losing (say) four attack subs for a carrier is likely considered a good tradeoff for the people losing the subs. Well…at $4.4 billion each for a Seawolf class attack sub I doubt the US navy would see the loss of four of those (I know we only have three) acceptable to kill a carrier battlegroup but China recently bought 8 Kilo class diesel subs from Russia for $1.6 billion. Granted those subs are not near as capable as the Seawolf class but losing the lot of them to sink one US carrier probably is a good trade for the Chinese. I do not know how able Kilos would be of getting in position to attack a CVBG but as I understand it the Kilo class is a capable boat. If eight went after a CVBG I would wager that is worth seriously worrying about.
For comparison’s sake the newest carrier (George H.W. Bush :rolleyes: , CVN-77) should cost ~$4.5 billion. Of course, that is just the ship. Add in all the planes and personnel and what not and its value goes way up (i.e. if it is sunk you lose all that stuff not even considering the ~5500 souls on board).
You might want to check that dateline, Magiver. If China has indeed been building landing craft since 2001, where are they all? And why is Taiwan still standing 4 years later?
You know, I think ship namings can get out of hand too. But I have to ask why you think this inappropriate.
George H.W. Bush, before his years of public service and a term as president, was a naval aviator who flew from carriers.
There’s not a hell of a lot any surface group can do against a determined sub driver who’s ready to sacrifice his ship to win, no.
That’s one of the main reasons China will never invade Taiwan by sea - they know that if the US Navy parked a couple of Seawolfs in the Formosa Straight, their invasion fleet wouldn’t stand a chance and their navy (The People’s Republic of China Army Navy if you can believe it :)) couldn’t find the Seawolfs sitting on the bottom. Couple that with a group of Los Angeles-class or ballistic missle subs launching Tomohawks from a couple hundred miles away, the air power already on Taiwan, as well as a carrier group or two on the far side of Taiwan, and any invasion fleet would be royally stuffed before it even got halfway across.
Actually, the model is pretty close. For all their disadvantages compared to a nuclear sub, diesel subs underwater are really quiet (no moving parts to generate power as it’s all batteries) and hard to detect, and therefore make great weapons platforms. You’re right about the Sovs, though - their subs were incredibly noisy, compared to ours, so we were pretty regularly following them but they often couldn’t follow us!
We don’t have to worry about someone attacking our carriers, but as for a sneaky launch platform that could get into our harbours and launch missile attacks, that is a definite possibility
I suppose like anything else, if a need arose, they could retrain and retool. They’re just big guns after all.
Whack-a-Mole - Yes 4 Kilos might be a fair trade against a carrier, however war is not simply a matter of scoring chess pieces. It depends on what the strategic objectives are. If the objective is to…say…control the straight between Taiwain and mainland China, China loses all it’s subs, we loose a carrier, we can still move another carrier or other warships in it’s place while China has lost all offensive capability.
I would have given a rolleyes if they called it the William Jefferson Clinton as well. Regardless of President Bush’s military service I find the naming of ships for recent presidents to be more ego stroking/suck up to the current administration than because the name makes some sort of sense. The USS Washington or Lincoln I can see. Even a USS Eisenhower or Kennedy but for a president who is still alive and only 15 years or so out of office whose son is now president I find suspect.
Additionally, what do you think the chances are there will ever be a USS Clinton?
Probably better than I would like.
I’d guess they’d revive the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt name before that ever happened, though. That seems far more appropriate.
Because (a) war with Taiwan would have really nasty international relations and economic consequences, and, (b), Taiwan is a tough nut to crack. International Security ran an article a while back, “While China Cannot Conquer Taiwan”, which essentially argued that China lacked (at the time) the sea-and-air-lift capabilities to put troops into a “beachhead” on Taiwan proper faster than the Taiwanese could reinforce that area with their own troops. Further, the author argued that the PRC lacks the capacity to gain air superiority over Taiwan. A likelier scenario then a full-blown invasion would be a partial blockade, designed to force Taiwan to capitulate to a “one nation, two systems” arrangement once economic strangulation set it. This, the PRC probably could do, absent US intervention.
Minor nitpick - it’s actually the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). Which gives them a mildly badass acronym in English.
That was it! I dunno about great, but it was certainly entertaining. 
Though I was in the Navy, I was never on a sub so I claim no special expertese here. From what I recall though, firing a torpedo is like setting off a flair…especially firing a torpedo at a US carrier battle group (which ALWAYS has lots of ASW assets out sniffing around). That said, I don’t see how anyone could expect to wire guide a torpedo all the way to the target…and once the wires are cut (as the sub trys to evade the search), its on automatic…and automatic guidance can be fooled. For that matter, its not like any sane sub driver is going to come to periscope depth to visually guide in his shot. Nor is he going to use active sonar to guide in his shot. So, he’ll be guiding on passives…and passives can be fooled as well, especially in the herd that is a carrier battle group.
Again, I’m not saying that the US is invulnerable here, or that subs aren’t that effective…just that there are plenty of counters to torpedos also.
Certainly if you and all your crew are prepared to die for sure you can most likely get in range and take your shot. You will most probably even hit something, though you won’t necessarily hit the carrier you are shooting for. Remember, US defenses are in concentric rings that a sub has to penetrate to get to the juicy targets in the center…not all of which are the carrier either btw.
Thats certainly one good reason that China won’t invade. A better reason is that its doubtful that they could gain air superiority, and air planes can cut up transport ships as well as subs can. Another bigger reason is that China lacks (for now) the logistic assets so that even if they COULD do a forced entry invasion, they couldn’t support their troops on the ground. All this adds up to my skepticism that China REALLY wants to invade Taiwan (despite numerous threads on this every time things heat up).
No doubt Diesel/Electric boats are quiet…even more quiet than nuclear attack subs in fact though with obvious limitation. How good are the electronics on these boats though? How good are their torpedos? How good are their crews? Again, I have no doubts that if a nation like China REALLY wanted to go full bore after a US carrier group and was willing to sacrifice its sub assets to take it down they could do some damage…more so if they did it before hostilities started in fact when the US was unprepared. That doesn’t necessarily translate though into taking out the carrier, though they certainly could get lucky. More likely to my mind is they would take out several of the ASW or escort ships and perhaps manage to hit and damage some of the ships in the inner circle. Its not just about being quiet, its about being able to penetrate elaborate defenses of the greatest navy in the world these days, finding the exact target you want with passive sonar (how good is their electronics?) shooting your weapons (how good are their torpedos?) and making the sacrifice worth something. It does you no good if you lose a high percentage of your sub assets if all you manage to do is sink a few destroyers or a frigate or two.
Thats probably a better point…if some one did another Pearl Harbor on us, sneaking in multiple attack subs and launching missiles that could certainly hurt us badly as we would never know hostilities started before the attacks came. The same tactic might work once on a carrier battle group in fact…send in a group of subs before the US was even aware there was a threat at all, get them into close range (if they could do this without detection…something I have my doubts on but its possible) and then launch a full out attack, knowing those subs will most likely not make it back out.
-XT
Important Note–
The conclusions on the China issue are correct…if, and only if, China makes good, informed decisions, based on facts.
In WW2, Imperial Japan made its decisions based on Nationalism & a starry-eyed overconfidence.
Both of these traits are showing up in China today.
Pretty good, actually, (we’re on our third one). A USS William J Clinton? Not so good.
I agree with you, on recent presidents but the U.S.S. Hillary Clintonis coming anyway.
Ask and ye shall receive… (although it’s Franklin & Eleanor really)
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/destroyers/roosevelt/naming.html
XT - I think we’re kind of violently agreeing with each other here
If some jackass in a diesel sub was trying to penetrate the full active defences of a carrier group, I would give them a snowball’s chance in hell of doing so. But if we had one of our advanced nuke subs (Seawolf or LA) going after a more primitive country’s surface battle groups, I would give dollars to doughnuts that they Seawolf / LA would accomplish it’s mission without too much of a sweat and sink whatever targets they wanted to. Most countries don’t have the skill or experience we do either in detecting subs or in penetrating ASW nets due to our long warm naval war with the Soviets.
I agree completely. The Seawolfs are a deterrent; the Taiwanese Air Force and a couple of US Carrier groups are the proof that a naval invasion cannot happen. Any surface mariner who knows anything about anything fears submarines and what they can do. I would think that if I was the driver of a troop transport from the PRC, I would be scared shitless about travelling across the Formosa Straights in my stupid little boat with one of those fearsome beasties about, and that is exactly the point.
All good questions. I doubt they are as experienced as our crews are, but if the PRC Air Force is as good as it is, why would they skimp on electronics and such for their subs? Just cause it’s a diesel boat doesn’t mean the electronics are WW2 caliber…
No doubt, and as I said, I seriously doubt this is how hostilities would go in a major naval battle between us and the Chinese. And how you describe it is exactly how I predict such a battle would go.
Hence my generic worry in previous threads about port security in the US. I moved to England after living in Seattle for 5 years or so, and the thought of that massive unprotected harbour scant feet away from a major metropolitan area just fills me with the shivers. How hard would it be to sneak a dirty bomb aboard a container ship and detonate it after it docked, or even to just load 30 or 40 containers on a stolen ship with explosives and detonate that? How hard would it be to sneak a couple of diesel subs into that harbour, miles from the nearest naval base, and be able to fire a couple of Scud-like missiles inland (to say the nuclear sub base or to the Air Wing at Whidbey Island) without being detected, then hit the shipping areas, and be able to scoot back out of the Straights of Juan de Fuca without too much trouble? We’d have to depend on the Coast Guard to find the subs, and they don’t have a hell of a lot of ASW technology last time I checked…
Yes, it might be suicide for the perpetrators, if we could in fact catch them, but if 9-11 proved anything it proved that people who are willing to die to accomplish their mission frequently do accomplish it.