# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/121 "2017-03-22T17:10:37Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > They don’t exist because there are no cannon to launch them yet. But there _are_ a ton of 16’’ shells in rusting stockpiles, and those could very feasibly be fitted with El Cheapo GPS guidance kits So you’re going to take shells in “rusting” stockpiles, rely on them working effectively, create GPS guidance kits for them from scratch, somehow guarantee that the kit is “El Cheapo” even though no one has built one for shells that size before and there would be no general market for them? Even putting aside the lack of usefulness of guns that can only hit targets within a few miles of the coast and that can’t engage modern naval craft at standard combat ranges, it doesn’t sound like a good idea to rely on ‘rusting’ shells and ‘El Chapo’ newly designed GPS kits for a weapon system. ---
**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 22, 2017, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/122 "2017-03-22T18:57:38Z")
You guys seem to be fixated on those 16" guns. 😛 I think they would literally have to take the old guns off of the museum battleships to put them back into use…either that or figure out how to recast the things and then hire a bunch of out of work buggy whip makers and switch board operators to use grinders to take the rust off of the surplus shells. 😉 Seriously, a modern BB isn’t going to use those things, so no use even talking about them. No use talking about trying to lash up some sort of kludged together Excalibur type guided munitions system when the Navy is and has been working on other directed fire systems that do more and have more capabilities (assuming they can work out some of the glaring engineering issues). No one is going to take those ships out of mothballs, either, since they would be the worst of all worlds…expensive to bring back up to scratch (again), manpower intensive, and far less capable while also being very vulnerable. So, if we are going to talk about battleships we should try and keep it real at least and really look at the pros and cons…there are some of each. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/123 "2017-03-22T21:54:25Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > And you know who made those reports? Men who had been through a sustained artillery barrage and were still alive. Generally speaking, a weapon that kills bodies is considered more effective than one that rattles souls. Artillery has historically been the #1 casualty producing arm of the military for centuries, causing something like 2/3 to 3/4 of all casualties. So it’s extremely effective in a killing/wounding kind of way, AND it has the added benefit of suppressing and rattling the enemy on the receiving end of the barrage. That said, battleships are still way too expensive and limited to be useful in a modern war. ---
**Author:** ![ssgenius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@ssgenius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ssgenius)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/124 "2017-03-23T00:46:13Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Even then, the Americans were lucky. The Japanese were alerted to the presence of the American carrier force, but could not pinpoint where it was. The American fleet sort of knew where the Japanese carriers were, in part because they knew what the Japanese plan generally was, but weren’t totally sure. But then three dive bomber groups chances upon the Japanese carrier force at the same time, at precisely the moment the fighter cover wasn’t there, and a few minutes later that was that. > > I would hasten to add that the Japanese made a huge list of errors in their preparation for the battle and actions during the battle, but the extreme lethality of dive bombers against carriers and role of chance is well illustrated by the fact that even after the catastrophic loss of three of four carriers, what was left of the Japanese force - Hiryu - sent what she had left after the retreating bombers, found USS Yorktown, and smashed her to uselessness. RickJay I know that you are summarizing it but the Yorktown was already damaged from the previous battle of the Coral Sea and had some emergency repairs done to it so it was not in 100% shape. It took 2 separate attacks from the Hiryu to damge the ship and even then the damage was under control until the Yorktown was hit by a torpedo from a submarine which finally sunk it. It took more than just the Dive Bombers to sink the Yorktown!!! Thanks ---
**Author:** ![Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8c91f0/32.png) [@Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Throatwarbler_Mangrove)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/125 "2017-03-23T01:25:33Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > They don’t exist because there are no cannon to launch them yet. But there _are_ a ton of 16’’ shells in rusting stockpiles, and those could very feasibly be fitted with El Cheapo GPS guidance kits (much like some arty shells have been kitted, or like dumb innacurate Mk. 82 & 84s suddenly became pinpoint JDAM bombs after the first Gulf War) at a cost that is far, far, FAR below that of a Tomahawk missile. Even if the production line has to be made from scratch. > > (It’s still dumb to bring back BBs though) A bomb can be fitted with a cheap guidance kit because a bomb doesn’t need to be fired out of a 16" gun, A bomb is just a propane tank filled with fertilizer and some sheet metal fins on one end. Making an artillery shell steerable and guided while still surviving being fired out of a gun is actually quite difficult. Much easier to maybe take the guided bomb and attach a rocket to it and launch it off a rail or tube that doesn’t wear out…😕 ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/126 "2017-03-23T09:54:08Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > it doesn’t sound like a good idea to rely on ‘rusting’ shells and ‘El Chapo’ newly designed GPS kits for a weapon system. And yet, that’s where JDAM and laser guided Paveway bombs come from. It’s the US military finding a use for those tons upon tons of dumb iron bombs that had been patiently stockpiled in preparation for When The Russians Come ; retrofitted with fins and a guidance system that is [the most barebones, kludgy thing you’ve ever seen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Direct_Attack_Munition#/media/File:US_Navy_030319-N-4142G-020_Ordnance_handlers_assemble_Joint_Direct_Attack_Munition_(JDAM)_bombs_in_the_forward_mess_decks.jpg). Rusting was a humourous addition - I’m sure the Navy takes care of its stocks and ballistic shells don’t really “go bad” with time provided they’re stored properly. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/127 "2017-03-23T12:10:31Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > And yet, that’s where JDAM and laser guided Paveway bombs come from. It’s the US military finding a use for those tons upon tons of dumb iron bombs that had been patiently stockpiled in preparation for When The Russians Come ; Those are BOMBS not artillery shells. They’re basically a big payload with fins that just drops out of a plane, so it’s easy to add effective guidance to them. 16" shells don’t have any airfoil surfaces for guidance by default and get fired from a cannon. You’ve got to make an electronic guidance system that consistently survives the jolt and acceleration of being fired, and that still gets a good signal once it’s out in the air (so probably can’t just be internal to the shell). And you’ve got to add flight capability to the shell to let the guidance actually guide it, and the wings/fins/etc that you add need to be both strong enough to actually move the shell, compact enough to fold away for the initial firing, and strong enough in their folded form not to be damaged by firing. It’s not an insurmountable engineering problem, but the idea that it’s going to be “El Cheapo” to add multiple completely new capability to something that starts as simple as a shell, especially with the costs military projects rack up, is not based in reality. And there are nowhere near as many 16" shells in stock as there were bombs, so this unique newly engineered weapon system can’t spread it’s R&D and startup costs over nearly as many devices. And doing all of this in some weird bid to possibly reduce the per-explosion but not per-mission cost of bombarding things that are really close to the shoreline while forcing the task force to cling much closer to the shore (and thus be much more vulnerable to attack) than they’d need to without the ‘cheap’ weapon system is just nuts. > [@](#): > > Rusting was a humourous addition - I’m sure the Navy takes care of its stocks and ballistic shells don’t really “go bad” with time provided they’re stored properly. Complaining that I responded to the words you wrote is perhaps the weakest response you can make; if you didn’t want to denigrate the readiness of the shells you shouldn’t have described them that way. Explosives do go bad over time, regardless of how much you romanticize battleship guns. ---
**Author:** ![Onyerbike](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/onyerbike/32/5402_2.png) [@Onyerbike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Onyerbike)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/128 "2017-03-23T13:46:30Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > and ballistic shells don’t really “go bad” with time provided they’re stored properly. Small hijack sorry. I believe that old 16 inch shells were implicated in an explosion that killed many sailors on board a US navy battleship some time ago? The name of which of course escapes me. Bad powder in the shell was one of the stronger theories as to why it all went bang. I would like to corrected if wrong about that please US navy buffs because it was awful tragedy and my memory is hazy. So I am not certain stockpiled big gun ammunition can be necessarily relied on. Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk ---
**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 23, 2017, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/129 "2017-03-23T14:11:37Z")
> [@Onyerbike](#): > > Small hijack sorry. > > I believe that old 16 inch shells were implicated in an explosion that killed many sailors on board a US navy battleship some time ago? The name of which of course escapes me. Bad powder in the shell was one of the stronger theories as to why it all went bang. I would like to corrected if wrong about that please US navy buffs because it was awful tragedy and my memory is hazy. > > So I am not certain stockpiled big gun ammunition can be necessarily relied on. > > Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk Actually, I think it was the bagged charge (16" shells don’t have powder in them, they use bagged charges that are separate from the shell) not the shell (and possibly the loader was involved as well). If the shell had gone off it would have had a rather, um, major effect on the ship, even in the armored loading area… ---
**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 23, 2017, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/130 "2017-03-23T14:32:53Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > Those are BOMBS not artillery shells. They’re basically a big payload with fins that just drops out of a plane, so it’s easy to add effective guidance to them. 16" shells don’t have any airfoil surfaces for guidance by default and get fired from a cannon. You’ve got to make an electronic guidance system that consistently survives the jolt and acceleration of being fired, and that still gets a good signal once it’s out in the air (so probably can’t just be internal to the shell). And you’ve got to add flight capability to the shell to let the guidance actually guide it, and the wings/fins/etc that you add need to be both strong enough to actually move the shell, compact enough to fold away for the initial firing, and strong enough in their folded form not to be damaged by firing. > > It’s not an insurmountable engineering problem, but the idea that it’s going to be “El Cheapo” to add multiple completely new capability to something that starts as simple as a shell, especially with the costs military projects rack up, is not based in reality. And there are nowhere near as many 16" shells in stock as there were bombs, so this unique newly engineered weapon system can’t spread it’s R&D and startup costs over nearly as many devices. > > And doing all of this in some weird bid to possibly reduce the per-explosion but not per-mission cost of bombarding things that are really close to the shoreline while forcing the task force to cling much closer to the shore (and thus be much more vulnerable to attack) than they’d need to without the ‘cheap’ weapon system is just nuts. > > Complaining that I responded to the words you wrote is perhaps the weakest response you can make; if you didn’t want to denigrate the readiness of the shells you shouldn’t have described them that way. Explosives do go bad over time, regardless of how much you romanticize battleship guns. Dude, you’re focusing on something that is the least of the problems with this plan. It’s like if we’re having an online debate about finding a wrecked Model T in a junkyard, and we’re having a discussion about whether its worth rebuilding it. It isn’t worth a half-dozen posts about whether or not we can find tires that fit, when we have to deal with rust, no seats, an engine that’s been sitting for twenty years, missing parts, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/131 "2017-03-23T14:39:00Z")
> **[USS Iowa turret explosion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion)** > > On 19 April 1989, an explosion occurred within the Number Two 16-inch gun turret of the United States Navy battleship USS Iowa (BB-61) during a fleet exercise in the Caribbean Sea near Puerto Rico. The explosion in the center gun room killed 47 of the turret's crewmen and severely damaged the gun turret itself. Two major investigations were undertaken into the cause of the explosion, one by the U.S. Navy and then one by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Sandia National Laboratories... 47 sailors were killed in the explosion. The likely cause was an overram of one of the powder bags. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/132 "2017-03-23T14:46:33Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > A battleship has three feet of armor, and it’s true that that’s impressive… but a modern aircraft carrier has armor about 1000 miles thick. 36 inch armor belt?? Cite? ---
**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 23, 2017, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/133 "2017-03-23T14:57:20Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > 36 inch armor belt?? Cite? > **[Iowa-class battleship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa-class_battleship#Armor)** > > Helicopter Flight deck added. > The Iowa class was a class of six fast battleships ordered by the United States Navy in 1939 and 1940. They were initially intended to intercept fast capital ships such as the Japanese Kongō class and serve as the "fast wing" of the U.S. battle line. The Iowa class was designed to meet the Second London Naval Treaty's "escalator clause" limit of 45,000-long-ton (45,700 t) standard displacement. Beginning in August 1942, four vessels, Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri, an... This says the belt armor was 12.1 inches. There’s an awful lot of BS about cool weapons. “One 16 inch shell can clear 200 yards of jungle to create a landing zone for a helicopter!” is another doozy. ---
**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 23, 2017, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/134 "2017-03-23T15:06:08Z")
> [@usedtobe](#): > > It is my understanding that, in 1941, almost nobody valued a carrier above a battleship. You picked up an interesting question and yes, carriers were unappreciated up until December 6, 1941. The next day changed that, of course, at least for the Americans. > [@RickJay](#): > > I get the impression you are under the mistaken assumption that the Japanese sank battleships and not carriers at Pearl Harbor because they chose to attack battleships and not carriers. That is wrong. They sank battleships because the battleships were there. Pearl Harbor is easy to find, it doesn’t move. If the carriers had been there they’d have sunk those. > > The Japanese attack was not against battleships. It was against Pearl Harbor. They knew that SOME portion of the Pacific Fleet would be there and they were going to sink whatever they could. The Japanese knew it was likely the carriers might be out of port that day but that was the day the attack had to happen; it was unfortunate for them, but Pearl Harbor was only part of a very large, coordinated plan. Actually **usedtobe** was on the right track. Yamamoto believed that striking at the battleships would demoralize the Americans and this was the most important goal of the raid. The IJN was completely wedded to the [Mahanian doctrine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Thayer_Mahan#Origin_and_limitation_of_strategic_views), believing that there would be a “decisive battle” of battleships between Japan and the US and that carriers would be used to pick off some of enemy before the encounter. In one of the greatest ironies of WWII, while the US was forced to jettison its battleship strategy after Pearl Harbor followed by the sinking the RN capital ships, [Prince of Wales and Repulse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_Prince_of_Wales_and_Repulse) by land-based IJN bombers, Japan never did! Had the carriers been at PH, they would have loved to have sunk them, of course, but for Yamamoto the carriers were not the highest priority. The officer in charge of actually planning the mission, Mitsuo Fuchida, took it on himself to allocate a large number of dive bombers for the carriers, but as they were absent, the dive bombers were utilized for other targets. As it was, sinking or heavily damaging six of the eight WWI-era, slow battleships was perhaps a service to the USN, as the trained crew could be used on other ships. These older battleships couldn’t keep up with the carriers and used far too much oil when tankers and oilers were in short supply. I’ve seen it suggested that the Japanese would have actually been better off attacking the destroyers at Pearl Harbor instead. They were the work horses in the war and losing a bunch of them would have stung. > [@](#): > > And they did try to do this - Midway. The entire point of Midway was to lure the American carrier force into a place where they knew it would be, so they could destroy it. Due in large part to bad luck they lost theirs instead, but make no mistake, they were there to sink the carriers. Actually, they were attempting to lure the American _fleet_ into an ambush. Yamamoto still didn’t get it. He was behind the Japanese carriers in the First Battleship Division, hoping to wreak havoc on the USN fleet. After the loss of the first three IJN carriers, the Japanese still attempted to press the attack with the surface fleet, the 3rd Battleship Division and some cruisers! In another example of their bat shit crazy tactics, the forth carrier, \*Hiryo, \*tagged along with this group, allowing itself to be found and sunk as well. It should have retired from the battle. > [@RickJay](#): > > I would hasten to add that the Japanese made a huge list of errors in their preparation for the battle and actions during the battle, but the extreme lethality of dive bombers against carriers and role of chance is well illustrated by the fact that even after the catastrophic loss of three of four carriers, what was left of the Japanese force - Hiryu - sent what she had left after the retreating bombers, found USS Yorktown, and smashed her to uselessness. Yamamoto suffered from the same problem as [the little girl with a curl](https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/44650). When he was good, he was very good, but when he was bad, he was horrid. The planning was a fiasco. Japanese scout planes were in contact with the US carriers from before the attack by the American planes. However, the Japanese weren’t able to launch their attacks until after they lost the three carriers. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/135 "2017-03-23T15:06:11Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Dude, you’re focusing on something that is the least of the problems with this plan. I’m responding directly to posts that are spouting misleading and/or incorrect information. It’s like if we’re having a debate about fidning a wrecked Model T in a junkyard, and someone keeps insisting that you can cheaply and quickly retrofit the engine with a modern hybrid engine, and I respond to that person. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/136 "2017-03-23T15:09:34Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > And yet, that’s where JDAM and laser guided Paveway bombs come from. It’s the US military finding a use for those tons upon tons of dumb iron bombs that had been patiently stockpiled in preparation for When The Russians Come ; retrofitted with fins and a guidance system that is [the most barebones, kludgy thing you’ve ever seen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Direct_Attack_Munition#/media/File:US_Navy_030319-N-4142G-020_Ordnance_handlers_assemble_Joint_Direct_Attack_Munition_(JDAM)_bombs_in_the_forward_mess_decks.jpg). > > Rusting was a humourous addition - I’m sure the Navy takes care of its stocks and ballistic shells don’t really “go bad” with time provided they’re stored properly. Now that the Russian might well come again, the US finds itself short of munitions. No, [really](https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-04-10/us-dropping-bombs-quicker-it-can-make-them). ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/137 "2017-03-23T15:46:45Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Artillery has historically been the #1 casualty producing arm of the military for centuries, causing something like 2/3 to 3/4 of all casualties. > > So it’s extremely effective in a killing/wounding kind of way, AND it has the added benefit of suppressing and rattling the enemy on the receiving end of the barrage. Artillery fire may produce the highest percentage of casualties but how does it compare to the percentage of artillery fired overall? There were artillery barrages that literally went on for days; obviously, there’s going to be casualties from any weapon if you keep shooting it at the enemy long enough. The statistics vary but it appears it took an average of around a hundred artillery shells to produce one casualty. It may be that artillery wasn’t more effective than other weapons but just got used more than other weapons. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/138 "2017-03-23T15:57:49Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > Yamamoto believed that striking at the battleships would demoralize the Americans and this was the most important goal of the raid. The IJN was completely wedded to the [Mahanian doctrine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Thayer_Mahan#Origin_and_limitation_of_strategic_views), believing that there would be a “decisive battle” of battleships between Japan and the US and that carriers would be used to pick off some of enemy before the encounter. Maybe we could call it the Tsushima Effect. Japan was the only country that ever won the kind of decisive naval victory Mahan had envisioned. Other countries, which had never had any Mahanian successes, were quicker to question his doctrines. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/139 "2017-03-23T16:15:26Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Artillery fire may produce the highest percentage of casualties but how does it compare to the percentage of artillery fired overall? There were artillery barrages that literally went on for days; obviously, there’s going to be casualties from any weapon if you keep shooting it at the enemy long enough. The statistics vary but it appears it took an average of around a hundred artillery shells to produce one casualty. It may be that artillery wasn’t more effective than other weapons but just got used more than other weapons. Artillery kills those who are caught in the open, once when they take cover casualty rates fall precipitously. People taking cover are not very effective at fighting. Arty is excellent at forcing people to take and stay in cover. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639/140 "2017-03-23T18:38:48Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > “Out of curiosity, how much explosives do you think the typical anti-ship missile carries? In pounds or kilograms. You can guess if you want” > > So considering that the USS Arizona was sunk by bombs that had roughly that much explosive power, why do you think that shells are the bigger threat? Arizona was probably sunk by a Type 99 No. 80 Mk. 5 bomb, converted 16" AP shell, ~50lbs of explosive. I don’t know what’s being viewed as ‘typical’ AShM but obviously way more than that for biggest ones. But of course it depends on more than explosive weight. A very small weight of explosive could destroy a battleship if ‘helped out’ by the BB’s own propellant charges. But BB’s became obsolete mainly because of their inability to strike at ranges anything like carriers could, and the carrier’s capability to carry fighters to defend itself and other ships. It wasn’t that BB’s were softer targets than carriers; it was the other way around, just considering the ships themselves. Lack of long range offensive capability was partly addressed by fitting the Iowa’s with long range missiles in the last reactivation, but taking that past a certain point then it isn’t really a battleship. The reason to reactivate BB’s, were it still practical which it no longer is, would be for the unique capabilities of their 16" guns in certain situations. But it’s a narrow of set of situations given their short range\* (compared to planes or missile) relatively poor accuracy\*, and relatively few opposing targets which can’t be engaged otherwise. Anyway the points about vulnerability of surface ships to super/hypersonic air breathing AShM’s or anti-ship BM’s, more realistically and unfortunately from POV the USN, affects carriers and their escorts to a large degree also. Although, it’s moderated to the extent carriers can remain far from their targets. The practical hedge against this however is submarine and long range a/c capability at sea, besides continual attempts to advance the defense. Also the effect of ‘soft’ countermeasures is hard to predict. Modern AShM’s would certainly be much harder in absolute terms to jam or decoy than the old Soviet P-15 (‘Styx’). But in 1973 the Israeli Navy still had little practical capability to shoot down P-15’s yet the missiles were completely ineffective due soft kill countermeasures. It’s hard to say ‘there’s no defense’ without knowing secret details of seekers (comms, surveillance systems) and ECM against them. But BB reactivation is now fully in the realm of defense porn, completely impractical. \*it’s possible to develop much longer range guided shells, but fundamentally harder to develop a given propulsion/guidance system in something that has to survive being shot out of a cannon compared to boosted by rocket. In-shell electronics go back to proximity fuses in WWII but ambitious long range guided shell projects in the USN have had a troubled history. That’s one of the Zumwalt class issues, long range guided 155mm shells that the USN has decided are too expensive to buy in large numbers. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-they-really-bring-back-the-battleship/782639.md?page=8)