# Will they really bring back the battleship? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 20, 2017, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639 "2017-03-20T19:42:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Avery\_Weisman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Avery\_Weisman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avery_Weisman)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/181 "2017-03-28T06:59:32Z")
You’ll have mini-battleships suited for littoral fighting. They will revert to the speed-armor-firepower formula as applied to BB’s before. I’m surprised naval designers are sticking to the speed-firepower-stealth for littoral combat units. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/182 "2017-03-28T12:59:58Z")
> [@Avery\_Weisman](#): > > How many missiles can you carry? A Navy SSGN submarine can carry 154 missiles with a great degree of stealth. Current surface combatants (both the Burke class and Zumwalt class) can each carry several dozen missiles. Since our most capable naval adversary, China, has something like a couple hundred surface combatants that we would be concerned about, how many missiles do you think one ship needs? > [@](#): > > Were the Iowa or New Jersey in any kind of danger when they bombarded North Vietnam, or Lebanon, or launched missiles at Iraq? Well, they also weren’t that useful. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/183 "2017-03-28T13:39:20Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > 😕 The battleships saw plenty of action. They would shell invasion beaches for days at a time, leaving those ships well within reach of the enemy for extended periods. They fired off hundreds of rounds, proving that the battleship breech loaded gun remained a well proven technology. He said “since” meaning “after” the war. Obviously they had more practice during the war itself. ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/184 "2017-03-28T22:43:45Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > A Navy SSGN submarine can carry 154 missiles with a great degree of stealth. Current surface combatants (both the Burke class and Zumwalt class) can each carry several dozen missiles. Since our most capable naval adversary, China, has something like a couple hundred surface combatants that we would be concerned about, how many missiles do you think one ship needs? > > Well, they also weren’t that useful. Well that depends on what you want them to be useful for. For the Marines and Army within 20 miles of shore they were damn useful. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/185 "2017-03-28T22:59:33Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > Well that depends on what you want them to be useful for. > > For the Marines and Army within 20 miles of shore they were damn useful. If I designed an impressive weapon that could only be used during the month of February, would you buy it? ---
**Author:** ![Avery\_Weisman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Avery\_Weisman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avery_Weisman)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/186 "2017-03-28T23:06:25Z")
You scaled the time frame wrong. One month a year or 8.3% of the time is plenty of deployment, considering most weapons wait years before tasting actual combat. One acquires weapons based on probable frequency and severity of need. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/187 "2017-03-28T23:31:41Z")
I think you’re explaining your thoughts poorly, because I can’t make heads or tails of what you wrote. Are you saying that you would buy a weapon that was useless in 11 months out of the year? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/188 "2017-03-28T23:42:32Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > If I designed an impressive weapon that could only be used during the month of February, would you buy it? Well, we do have militarized snowmobiles, so, yeah (kinda.) (Not a serious rebuttal, just a quip.) ---
**Author:** ![Avery\_Weisman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Avery\_Weisman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avery_Weisman)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2017, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/189 "2017-03-29T00:22:31Z")
It’s pointless answering a question like that directly. There have been a lot of weapons designed for just one use and that’s it. Not all weapons are manufactured at constant volume and standard features. Specialized one-time weapons exist (at least in mind) and are waiting to be built or assembled at a moment’s call. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2017, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/190 "2017-03-29T01:32:15Z")
Give me five contemporaneous examples. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2017, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/191 "2017-03-29T03:45:16Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Give me five contemporaneous examples. Well, there’s the Sphere of Annihilation, the Battle Analyzer, and the Exponential Field, for starters. ---
**Author:** ![Avery\_Weisman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Avery\_Weisman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avery_Weisman)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2017, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/192 "2017-03-29T04:15:27Z")
Nuclear: Tsar Bomba - 54 megatons (tested only) Castle Bravo - 15 megatons (tested only) Non-nuclear: GBU-28 (bunker buster) - two used at Desert Storm GBU-43 (MOAB) - tested only, 15 units produced FOAB (Russian counterpart of MOAB - no data ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2017, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/193 "2017-03-29T15:28:32Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > This was a tabletop board game not a computer game. Attacking with guns was the same procedure as attacking with missiles; you looked up the numbers and then rolled dice to see if you had a hit. So the “fun” was pretty much equivalent. > > If anything, firing the guns in a game would tend to be more fun. As many people have conceded, battleships and their big guns are cool. > > But it never came up in the game. The guns had such short range that two opposing ships never found themselves within the range of each other’s guns. Long before that happened, other weapons with far longer ranges would have been used. Back in the day, I once managed to get an \*Iowa \*class BB into a Soviet task force while playing the original “Harpoon” game. Managed to sink like 8 ships with guns before the battleship itself sank. It was on fire and heavily damaged (probably sinking) before coming into gun range, but once it opened up, it was insane by the game’s standards. None of that “on fire” or other damaged and possibly sinking business- just outright destruction. Not that it proves anything, but it’s something I definitely remember being interesting. And in terms of actual gameplaying, it wasn’t terribly effective, as it basically took me losing the game just to contrive the situation where I could get the BB to grips with the enemy ships at gun range. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2017, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/194 "2017-03-29T15:41:36Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > This was a tabletop board game not a computer game. Attacking with guns was the same procedure as attacking with missiles; you looked up the numbers and then rolled dice to see if you had a hit. So the “fun” was pretty much equivalent. > > If anything, firing the guns in a game would tend to be more fun. As many people have conceded, battleships and their big guns are cool. > > But it never came up in the game. The guns had such short range that two opposing ships never found themselves within the range of each other’s guns. Long before that happened, other weapons with far longer ranges would have been used. In ideal worlds with optimal information and fairly equal sides this might be true. But the real world isn’t the same as the game world…I recently saw a video of the Iranian Navy attacking a mockup of a carrier with a bunch of smaller frigates and even smaller ships at relatively close range (20 miles or less). I’ve seen similar things about North Korea and some other countries. I think there is still a place in the Navy for having a gun on a ship, and considering the strides made on both range and, more important, guided munitions technology, I think this will remain the case. In addition, there are more missions for the Navy than simply combating other countries navies in blue water engagements that are at rough parity with the US. None of this is to say that a pure gun armed ship or battleship is a good idea. I still don’t think we need ships with batteries of the things on them. But a ship with a single large long range gun firing guided munitions? There is still a role for that in the US Navy. Probably why the Navy still has 5" guns on ships and is developing things like the rail gun or other long range guided munitions. When you feel the need to send the very best, certainly use a missile. But maybe you don’t want to sink or otherwise pound something at the cost of several million dollars a shot sometimes, and you want to save those for targets that warrant them. Do you know if there is a modern version of your board game? It would be interesting if they have updated it with the new rail guns or if they still feel like even 100-150 nautical miles is too short a range for such a weapon to be viable. ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2017, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/195 "2017-03-29T19:26:16Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > If I designed an impressive weapon that could only be used during the month of February, would you buy it? If I didn’t have a weapon that worked in February, and I thought I’d have to fight in February, damn straight I’d buy it. If I designed an impressive weapon that could only used by infantry that could only kill other infantry within 500 yards would you buy it? If I designed an impressive weapon that could only be used underwater and launch nuclear missiles would you buy it? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2017, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/196 "2017-03-29T19:54:51Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > If I designed an impressive weapon that could only be used during the month of February, would you buy it? What does it do, make blacks history? ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2017, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/197 "2017-03-30T04:48:39Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I think we are on the cusp of seeing antiship ballistic missiles becoming the predominant threat to surface ships. By “ballistic”, do you mean missiles that fly so high they can’t use control surfaces to steer in midphase? What’s are the advantages of ballistic missiles as opposed to the other kinds of missiles? > [@Ravenman](#): > > We are learning that distributed lethality – like a network of platforms that mix sensors and shooters – has tremendous advantages. What advantages aside from not putting all your eggs in the same basket? How much/what kind of specialization do you foresee happening in such a network? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2017, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/198 "2017-03-30T13:00:02Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > If I didn’t have a weapon that worked in February, and I thought I’d have to fight in February, damn straight I’d buy it. How do you know if you’re going to have a fight in February when you’re making a decision to buy a weapon that will only be operational years after you ask for it? Wouldn’t the enemy simply adapt to the limitations of that weapon? > [@](#): > > If I designed an impressive weapon that could only used by infantry that could only kill other infantry within 500 yards would you buy it? Considering the ground forces are the only way we know to seize and hold territory, yes. > [@](#): > > If I designed an impressive weapon that could only be used underwater and launch nuclear missiles would you buy it? Considering that it is the most effective deterrent for nuclear war, yes. ---
**Author:** ![Silver\_lining](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aca169/32.png) [@Silver\_lining](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silver_lining)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2017, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/199 "2017-03-30T13:52:25Z")
Not a chance. They are too old, and slow. And too big of a target. Battleships are now history. Smaller ships ( cheaper to build ) can do just as much damage with missiles, and the similar guns. And they are much more mobile, and harder to detect. The Navy actually has some radical stuff. Laser guns that can set a small craft on fire, radar evading shapes for boats, and magnetic rail guns that fire at super sonic speeds. At the speed that gun travels, the damage with the shell is enough no explosive is needed. ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2017, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/200 "2017-03-31T14:20:41Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > How do you know if you’re going to have a fight in February when you’re making a decision to buy a weapon that will only be operational years after you ask for it? Wouldn’t the enemy simply adapt to the limitations of that weapon? With this strategy, you’d never buy a weapons system. The entire art of warfare is based on adaptation. You create, he adapts, you adapt. Repeat. Is this really a new concept to you? How do you think mankind evolved from throwing rocks? Seriously, that just isn’t a great question. You buy a weapons system to fill a gap in your capabilities or to exploit a gap in your enemies. Then you prioritize based on funding, industrial capability, tradeoffs due to those factors, the likelihood of use and a litany of other factors. I’ve stated that I don’t think we should bring them back. They are very, very expensive, largely due to fuel, manpower, training and maintenance costs. When they were built, fuel and manpower were free. Not the case now. But . . . they have survivability on their side, and if (a big if) you felt you’d have to make an opposed large scale landing or fight a significant amount of time on the littoral, the BB would have to be considered. I don’t think it would ever be brought back, but under the correct circumstances above, you could make the case. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639.md?page=11)