The IOWA’s were reasonably accurate at the ranges up to 20000 yards or so (about 12 miles).
By accurate, this means that they. could be reasonably expected to get a shell or 2 on target assuming a full 9 shell broadside was fired to an object of their size (880 feet by 110 feet).
At maximum range, the accuracy dropped significantly which was on the range of 25 miles.
If used for shore bombardment, the odds of hitting a person is remote, a vehicle unlikely, a small building a little better but still unlikely.
It would take a building roughly the size of the ship to be have a chance at being successfully hit unless it was a lucky shot.
So for their bombardment to be useful, the target would have to close to the coast and fairly large. (In other words, they would have a good chance at hitting most buildings in Manhattan - to give an example that most would be familiar with)
As for hitting other ships, they would have to be within 12 miles to be effective and remember that the Iowa’s were the most accurate of all the battleships. (which is why they added missiles to the ship in the late 80s)
Interesting link on the drones being used to help the accuracy.
This would certainly help the accuracy to better than what I described for shore bombardment but remember that the these drones could only allow them to adjust the previous shot
By the way, also during Desert Storm, Iraqi soldiers surrendered to reporters. I guess that they must have been awed by the sheer power of the freedom of the press in ways that no missile could possibly have scared them.
Either that, or Iraqis were prepared to surrender to literally anything. By some counts, nearly 40% of Iraqis abandoned their units, either to surrender or go home. That wasn’t because of one damned battleship.
There are GPS-guided arty shells out there already. They’re about 68,000 bucks a pop (no pun intended) and can safely be fired at positions about 75 meters from friendlies. Also adaptor kits for existing dumb 155mm shells at 10k a pop, and those can land a shell within 10 meters of its intended aim point. Within the context of artillery, that’s shooting the wings off a fly.
It’s still retarded to bring back battleships for a slew of reasons, but this ain’t one.
Unless the battleship could somehow be vastly automated to the point where it would need only the manpower of an Arleigh Burke, I don’t see how it could make a comeback, and even then it would be doubtful.
No submunitions, no mines, no guidance, no specialty ammunition. It’s just old dumb shells in a bigger package than anyone actually needs for any purpose.
I see a distinct lack of any supporting cites. The first one that I found puts the accuracy of Iowa guns at only managing a 200 yard pattern at 6.5 miles, which is not remotely as accurate as guided munitions.
This is great debates, so provide a cite, proving your claim that either missiles cannot be used in a sustained barrage, or that they do not cause psychological damage when used in a sustained barrage. I don’t think that missile-propelled explosives are less effective at causing PTSD than older artillery.
Remember when Iraquis surrendered to newspaper reporters too? That’s an insanely bad factoid to drag in to this discussion.
Cite, please, for these cheap battleships that cost less than missile ships. Nothing that I’ve ever seen postulates a battleship that would somehow cost less than other ships despite being larger and having more crew.
Only thing I’m aware of is the M982 Excalibur shells, and they certainly aren’t for 16 inch shells, though they could probably be adapted…maybe. They aren’t for naval combat currently, though the other side of that is modern (i.e. new) BBs probably wouldn’t be outfitted with 16" naval guns anyway…though I’m thinking that the possible rail gun rounds might not be too adaptable to something like Excalibur either since the acceleration would be even more extreme.
Did the Iraqis know specifically who and what the drones were spotting for - as in, battleships vs. any other system? I don’t think they would have analyzed it that deeply, only that they knew that drones were from enemy forces.
*Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes, i.e., evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony. When compared to other types of evidence, anecdotal evidence is generally regarded as limited in value due to a number of potential weaknesses, but may be considered within the scope of scientific method as some anecdotal evidence can be both empirical and verifiable, e.g. in the use of case studies in medicine.
*
A case study is anecdotal.
This idea that anecdotes arent evidence is a bad meme.
About 20 years ago, I heard the assessment that, inn event of all-out hostilities, no carrier of any nation would be afloat after 24 hours.
The French Excocet took out a UK ship in the 80’s.
The last “super ship-killer” I heard if was the Chinese silkworm - absolutely random course in cruise - only the start and end point were known.
There was a comment above about “being on cusp” of the anti-ship missile gaining permanent superiority against surface ships.
The “Cruise” missile made artillery pretty much useless - if a $500,000,000 missle can take out a $4,000,000,000 CVN, maybe it is time for another major re-design.
How soon until the CVN is as useful as the 1943 ultimate weapon, the BB?
Note: Japan took out the US BB’s pretty well, but apparently didn’t think carriers were worth the expense to kill.
After Midway, the folly of that decision was taught in first-year military academies just about everywhere.
Again, only if you don’t count the cost of the battleship. Sure, dumb shells are cheaper than smart missiles. But multi-billion dollar battleships aren’t. And those guns will only be useful in a very tiny set of missions, that is, shore bombardment.
Why won’t they be useful in naval battles? Because any enemy ship is going to be firing missiles or launching planes or torpedoes long before those guns are in range. And our other forces–our planes, our missiles, our submarines–are going to take out that enemy ship long before it gets within range of the guns.
Those guns will only be useful against targets onshore that can’t move, and do not possess any sort of anti-ship capability. If they have missiles or airplanes the multi-billion dollar BB can’t be risked. So the only time you need the BB you can’t use it without losing it. And if you’re just bombing goatherds holed up in caves, and the smart bombs aren’t doing it, send in some B-52s to bounce the rubble.
It’s moronic to bring back battleships, but survivability isn’t a reason not to either. The main reasons are that they’re ancient, they’re hugely expensive in terms of manpower, and they’re not very useful anymore.
I mean, even in WWII most battleships’ role was to provide shore bombardment in support of amphibious landings. Only a tiny number actually engaged in combat with other surface ships in a pair of battles- Surigao Strait and Guadalcanal are the only fights I can think of where US battleships actually got to grips with the enemy.
The rest mostly shelled Normandy or a bunch of Pacific islands.
So what would they be used for in a modern war? Shelling within 10-20 miles of teh coast? That hypothetical benefit is hardly worth the cost of reviving a 75 year old ship.
Purely incidentally, when the movie Battleship was released, The Asylum released their mockbuster American Battleship to ride its wake. If you can look past the cheap effects and poorer acting, American Battleship (later renamed American Warships after a brief legal battle) is the smarter movie, with fewer cinematic clichés.
Er… you then cite the example of Midway, when the Japanese went to great lengths to try to destroy the U.S. carrier force.
In fact they would have been quite delighted to destroy the carriers. However, the carriers weren’t there on December 7, and the Japanese didn’t know where they were. Lexington and Enterprise were ferrying planes to other bases; Saratoga, Wasp and Yorktown were at other docks, and Hornet was out training.