Author Topic: Bring Back The Battleship ?  (Read 5160 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 86,425
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,589
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #25 on: May 24, 2017, 08:58:05 »
Like carriers the BB requires an escort against submarines primarily. Updated with air defense missiles and anti-submarine capability it could be a potent addition to an amphibious ready group.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,425
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,774
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #26 on: May 24, 2017, 09:38:29 »
Halifax Tar beat me to it, but I too wondered how we got from discussing the merits of re-activating BB's with 16 inch guns to the merits of using a light cruiser with 6 inch guns only in the Falklands.

By the way, Colin, parking the General Belgrano in port Stanley to provide fire support would have had an air of "deja vu all over again" for the Falklands. In WWI, HMS CANOPUS (an actual battleship, but past her best-before date) was actually grounded in the harbour to serve as a land battery against  Graff Spee's squadron of cruisers, at least until Sturdee could show up with the two I class battlecruisers.

Had the General Belgrano been so parked, it simply would have become her resting place instead of the mid-ocean current location. She would have shown up on the overheads and found herself on the receiving end of four to six Exocets at mid range (so still half full of fuel) in only a few hours - to end up burned to a crisp.

But everyone is trying to avoid the real issue here: In our era of precision strike, do we need unguided, grossly imprecise gun support for the ground troops? Because for all the noise and apparent effect of shore bombardment, it is a very imprecise matter with not as much as thought of actual usefulness. Talk to the WWII army in Normandy or to the US Marines in the Pacific about how effective they found the "big guns" bombardments to have been after the fact and you will see that it was a lot less effective than expected. On top of that, the BB's or any other shore bombardment ship using guns would have to get in to within sight of land, and therefore in today's world would be at risk from shore batteries of portable ASu missiles. If on the other hand, you just wish to have a large hull to load with precision Land Attack missiles that can be fired from way out at sea, safely, then you don't need to spend all the money to rebuild the BB's from near scratch. All you need do is build a large "missile carrier" from scratch. (BTW, I don't even know if the US Navy has any Engine room Firemen to operate the boilers - and if you are talking of opening them up to remove the steam turbines and replace them with gas turbines, while removing the boilers, you are then getting into major redesign that is not worth it). 

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 100,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,807
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #27 on: May 24, 2017, 10:24:08 »
I thing the Brits only had the Sea slug which they did use for bombardment and the Sea Skua which might have not been that effective against an armoured ship.

I not married to the 16", as I recall the UK 14" were newer guns with better accuracy than the 16" and better effect on target. Hence the reason I would go with new guns from 8-14" firing modern ammunition and taking advantage of the armoured hulls with completely new power plants. New guns (and associated ammunition handling) and power plants would also significantly reduce manning requirements as well.

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 33,618
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,422
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #28 on: May 24, 2017, 10:34:55 »
Halifax Tar beat me to it, but I too wondered how we got from discussing the merits of re-activating BB's with 16 inch guns to the merits of using a light cruiser with 6 inch guns only in the Falklands.

By the way, Colin, parking the General Belgrano in port Stanley to provide fire support would have had an air of "deja vu all over again" for the Falklands. In WWI, HMS CANOPUS (an actual battleship, but past her best-before date) was actually grounded in the harbour to serve as a land battery against  Graff Spee's squadron of cruisers, at least until Sturdee could show up with the two I class battlecruisers.

Had the General Belgrano been so parked, it simply would have become her resting place instead of the mid-ocean current location. She would have shown up on the overheads and found herself on the receiving end of four to six Exocets at mid range (so still half full of fuel) in only a few hours - to end up burned to a crisp.

But everyone is trying to avoid the real issue here: In our era of precision strike, do we need unguided, grossly imprecise gun support for the ground troops? Because for all the noise and apparent effect of shore bombardment, it is a very imprecise matter with not as much as thought of actual usefulness. Talk to the WWII army in Normandy or to the US Marines in the Pacific about how effective they found the "big guns" bombardments to have been after the fact and you will see that it was a lot less effective than expected. On top of that, the BB's or any other shore bombardment ship using guns would have to get in to within sight of land, and therefore in today's world would be at risk from shore batteries of portable ASu missiles. If on the other hand, you just wish to have a large hull to load with precision Land Attack missiles that can be fired from way out at sea, safely, then you don't need to spend all the money to rebuild the BB's from near scratch. All you need do is build a large "missile carrier" from scratch. (BTW, I don't even know if the US Navy has any Engine room Firemen to operate the boilers - and if you are talking of opening them up to remove the steam turbines and replace them with gas turbines, while removing the boilers, you are then getting into major redesign that is not worth it).

While I know we are stuck on expensive missiles and other guided munitions, it is my belief that should we find ourselves in a peer V peer level, non-nuke conflict again we will quickly find that our stocks of these mentions will deplete and have a long lead time until they can be restocked for use.  Bullets and shells, IMHO, will very quickly become our go to munitions in this environment, as they are cheaper and easier to mass produce. 

Always the Sup Tech I see things with logistical glasses on lol
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,425
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,774
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #29 on: May 24, 2017, 10:48:36 »
I thing the Brits only had the Sea slug which they did use for bombardment and the Sea Skua which might have not been that effective against an armoured ship.

Actually, Colin, all six Type 21 (Amazon), three Type 22 (Broadsword, Batch I) and, two of the Leander class (post conversion) that were in the Falkland conflict carried four Exocet missiles each. On top of that, the three Swiftsure class submarines all carried some Sub-Harpoon missiles. So there were no shortages of bullets to deal with the General Belgrano, or with the Veinticinco de Mayo, had she reared her ugly head.

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 100,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,807
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #30 on: May 24, 2017, 11:14:14 »
Have anti-ship missiles ever been tested against an armoured ship?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn-class_cruiser
    Main Belt at Machinery:5 inches (127 mm) on 0.625-inch (16 mm) STS plate
    Main Belt at Magazines:2 inches (51 mm) on 0.625-inch (16 mm) STS plate
    Deck: 2 in (50 mm)
    Barbettes: 6 in (152 mm)
    Turret Roofs: 2 in (50 mm)
    Turret Sides: 1.25 in (31.75mm)
    Turret Face: 6.5 in (165 mm)
    Conning Tower: 5 in (127 mm)

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 33,618
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,422
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #31 on: May 24, 2017, 12:38:06 »
Have anti-ship missiles ever been tested against an armoured ship?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn-class_cruiser
    Main Belt at Machinery:5 inches (127 mm) on 0.625-inch (16 mm) STS plate
    Main Belt at Magazines:2 inches (51 mm) on 0.625-inch (16 mm) STS plate
    Deck: 2 in (50 mm)
    Barbettes: 6 in (152 mm)
    Turret Roofs: 2 in (50 mm)
    Turret Sides: 1.25 in (31.75mm)
    Turret Face: 6.5 in (165 mm)
    Conning Tower: 5 in (127 mm)

That is not allot of armor. Remember the Belgrano was a WW2 Light Cruiser.  For comparison:

Iowa Class:

Belt: 12.1 in (310 mm)

Bulkheads:
Iowa/New Jersey: 11.3 in (290 mm)
Missouri/Wisconsin: 14.5 in (370 mm)

Barbettes: 11.6 to 17.3 in (290 to 440 mm)

Turrets: 19.7 in (500 mm)

Decks:
main 1.5 in (38 mm)
second 6.0 in (150 mm)
splinter 0.625 in (15.9 mm) over machinery, 1 in (25 mm) over magazines

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_armor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_or_nothing_(armor)

I could be wrong, Navy Shooter can correct me, but I don't think current anti ship missiles have an armor piercing capability. 
« Last Edit: May 24, 2017, 12:49:55 by Halifax Tar »
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 41,314
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,616
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #32 on: May 24, 2017, 15:25:46 »
That is not allot of armor. Remember the Belgrano was a WW2 Light Cruiser.  For comparison:

Iowa Class:

Belt: 12.1 in (310 mm)

Bulkheads:
Iowa/New Jersey: 11.3 in (290 mm)
Missouri/Wisconsin: 14.5 in (370 mm)

Barbettes: 11.6 to 17.3 in (290 to 440 mm)

Turrets: 19.7 in (500 mm)

Decks:
main 1.5 in (38 mm)
second 6.0 in (150 mm)
splinter 0.625 in (15.9 mm) over machinery, 1 in (25 mm) over magazines

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_armor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_or_nothing_(armor)

I could be wrong, Navy Shooter can correct me, but I don't think current anti ship missiles have an armor piercing capability.

Normally I'd have to strongly consider security when talking about missile efficacy, but I truly do not know anything about ASM capability against armoured targets. We're just taught how to shoot them and how many to shoot. We're not actually taught how effective each missile is and why (unfortunately, that's the stuff I really wanted to learn).

Anyways, from what I do know about ASMs, my prediction would be that our Harpoons and similar size/speed missiles would basically bounce off of a Iowa class's armour.  Your best bet would be to hope it hits the mast and destroys their un-armoured radars so that they are no longer combat effective. Now, some of those supersonic missiles out there might have some better luck. 500kg travelling at Mach 3.0 has a bit more kinetic punch than a Harpoon travelling at 0.8 mach, regardless of warhead size.
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 100,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,807
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #33 on: May 24, 2017, 15:59:31 »
Even the Belgano took more than 1 torpedo hit and sank slowly and that apparently without being at action stations with watertight door open. These ships were not just armoured, but designed to prevent flooding from progressing.




Online jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 130,932
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,445
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #34 on: May 24, 2017, 17:06:35 »
Modern torpedoes no longer hit the hull but detonate beneath the keel, creating a void which breaks her back.  It would be interesting to see what a Mk48 would do to an Iowa.
I'm just like the CAF, I seem to have retention issues.

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 33,618
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,422
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #35 on: May 24, 2017, 19:48:55 »
Modern torpedoes no longer hit the hull but detonate beneath the keel, creating a void which breaks her back.  It would be interesting to see what a Mk48 would do to an Iowa.

I dont think there is any doubt that the Iowa would sustain damage but I dont think it would be as catastrophic as we have seen on you tube clips. 

The Iowa displaced 57'000 tons, full load, while a CPF displaces 4700(ish) tons.

Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 171,211
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,701
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 41,314
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,616
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #37 on: May 25, 2017, 09:09:40 »
Some interesting discussion on this here:

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/45770-effects-of-modern-asm-on-a-wwii-era-super-battleship/#topmost

Well.. that was a whirlwind. I started the read thinking, "for sure, the BB would be able to withstand modern missiles!", to "Nope, the BB is toast", and back again, and then the other way.

I still think the BB would in reality by able to shrug off most anti-ship missiles without significant structural damage; it might even be impossible to outright sink a BB with modern ASMs. However, a mission kill against a BB is very simply. All you have to do is hit it's superstructure with a few SM-6s, take out it's FC, Air, and Surface Search radars, and she's blind by modern standards. It might take a few extra missiles to do that to a BB compared to a DDG, but the relative cost in extra missiles is far outweighed by the difference in cost between a BB and a DDG.

I think bang for your buck, a BB just isn't worth the cost. It, like any modern warship, is just to vulnerable to mission kill.
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Online jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 130,932
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,445
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #38 on: May 25, 2017, 09:19:38 »
Nobody really spoke to what a modern torpedo would do under the hull, though.  They did briefly touch on the screws and rudder but not hull.  The torpedo belt armour isn't made for today's ordanance.
I'm just like the CAF, I seem to have retention issues.

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 41,314
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,616
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #39 on: May 25, 2017, 10:20:00 »
Nobody really spoke to what a modern torpedo would do under the hull, though.  They did briefly touch on the screws and rudder but not hull.  The torpedo belt armour isn't made for today's ordanance.

If you want to see what a Mk48 does to a larger ship (since most video are of them detonating under small destroyers, check out the video of HMCS VICTORIA sinking USNS Concord during RIMPAC:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyQQBwpygVQ

One shot; one kill.

Mind you, I bet her water tight doors were removed, so there was no watertight integrity. I'm curious what would have happen had they been closed.
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 100,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,807
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #40 on: May 25, 2017, 11:14:52 »
It's impressive what damage some ships took and stayed afloat


Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 86,425
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,589
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #41 on: May 25, 2017, 11:17:45 »
Not many modern ships could survive a modern torpedo or a couple of anti-ship torps. The key is to avoid being hit in the first place because of countermeasures and escort protection.

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 41,314
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,616
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #42 on: May 25, 2017, 13:42:04 »
Not many modern ships could survive a modern torpedo or a couple of anti-ship torps. The key is to avoid being hit in the first place because of countermeasures and escort protection.

By that, do you mean cannon fodder?



Just an idea I've had...

 ;D
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 100,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,807
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #43 on: May 25, 2017, 14:12:47 »
So strap some Kingston's to the each side and off ya go, the new "reactive armour"   [lol:

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,425
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,774
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #44 on: May 25, 2017, 14:32:21 »
Anyone can get in the way of a torpedo ... once!

On a serious note, however, please consider that the matter has more than just the "modern" torpedo to it.  Submariners, for ones, take into consideration their target on determining the best course of action.

Large ships (aircraft carriers, cruisers, etc) get contact detonation; "soft" escorts (destroyers, frigates, corvettes) get under hull detonation. Boomers get contact detonation, opposing diesel subs and attack subs get near side detonations to crush the ballast system, etc. etc. That, BTW is why the USNS concord is shot for contact detonation in the bow. She is a tanker in design and therefore, the idea is to cause as much flooding forward, in one of the tank, with the contact explosion causing crush damage to the bulkheads located between the various forward tanks. Watertight compartments then don't matter: the main fuel tanks are filling up, one after the other and she is doomed. The fact that the process would be quick when the tanks are empty or slow when they are full (unless she just bursts into flames) is irrelevant: you can't go down into the tanks to plug the breach and she will sink in the end.

Also, for those who think BB's can take torpedoes, consider the following names: USS ARIZONA, USS OKLAHOMA, USS UTAH  and HMS PRINCE OF WALES - all sunk by torpedoes during WWII (doesn't matter that the torpedoes were air launched).  Also, think about the BISMARCK: disabled by a single torpedo from a WWI Swordfish plane that lead to her final demise, this final demise included some other torpedoes from HMS DORSETSHIRE (a cruiser).

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 100,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,807
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #45 on: May 25, 2017, 17:29:44 »
For the Bismarck

2 torps from swordfish

16 torps fired from destroyers –all missed
A total of 2,876 shells were fired at Bismarck from 0847-1019, most at relatively close ranges (see Table 4).  During that time, it is possible that as many as 300-400 shells hit the German ship.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_Bismarck_p2.htm



Offline YZT580

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 16,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 488
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #46 on: May 25, 2017, 22:15:59 »
The swordfish was not a WW1 aircraft but was developed in the 30's.  It has the distinction of having sunk more German naval vessels than any other aircraft.  Unfortunately, the survival rate of aircrew was very low since the ideal release point for the torpedoes was only 1000 yards and the aircraft was barely doing 100 knots at the time. 

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 11,745
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 477
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #47 on: May 25, 2017, 23:27:08 »
Don't forget about some of the big bad boys of ASM like this guy;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrahMos

Even if you shoot it down, you have 3 tonnes or shrapnel coming in your general direction at mach 3 (or 7-8 if they get the hypersonic version working).

I'm sure the 'semi armour piercing' warhead would punch through at that point, regardless of armour.  I think that's where you need the screen to extend your detection range and give you some reaction time.

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 33,618
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,422
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #48 on: May 26, 2017, 06:15:07 »
Also, for those who think BB's can take torpedoes, consider the following names: USS ARIZONA, USS OKLAHOMA, USS UTAH  and HMS PRINCE OF WALES - all sunk by torpedoes during WWII (doesn't matter that the torpedoes were air launched).  Also, think about the BISMARCK: disabled by a single torpedo from a WWI Swordfish plane that lead to her final demise, this final demise included some other torpedoes from HMS DORSETSHIRE (a cruiser).

OGBD,

Using the happenings of Dec 7 1941 and the fate of Force Z on Dec 10 1941 doesn't really support your position. 

The BBs moored at "Battleship Row" that morning were at a relaxed state of readiness, on what we would consider Sunday routine, stationary and attacked by surprise while a state of war didn't exist.

Force Z, was simply out manned, out classed and sent on a mission of no return, unknowingly, by the British government of the day.  You have to remember this was at the time of IJN supremacy in the pacific where there able to just about sink anything that didn't fly the flag of the rising sun.

If we look at Yamato she its said to have taken 11 torpedos and 6 bombs.  Taking that kind of damage and sinking while at action stations and fighting a battle is a truer showing of the amount of damage a BB can endure.  Imagine if was properly escorted and protected.   
« Last Edit: May 26, 2017, 09:03:26 by Halifax Tar »
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 172,095
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,617
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Bring Back The Battleship ?
« Reply #49 on: May 26, 2017, 10:32:30 »
For the Bismarck

2 torps from swordfish

16 torps fired from destroyers –all missed
A total of 2,876 shells were fired at Bismarck from 0847-1019, most at relatively close ranges (see Table 4).  During that time, it is possible that as many as 300-400 shells hit the German ship.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_Bismarck_p2.htm

Scharnhorst took a pounding from a torpedo as well:

"The torpedo hit caused serious damage; it tore a hole 14 by 6 m (15.3 by 6.6 yd) and allowed 2,500 t (2,500 long tons; 2,800 short tons) of water into the ship. The rear turret was disabled and 48 men were killed. The flooding caused a 5 degree list, increased the stern draft by almost a meter, and forced Scharnhorst to reduce speed to 20 knots (37 km/h; 23 mph).[24] The ship's machinery was also significantly damaged by the flooding, and the starboard propeller shaft was destroyed.."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_battleship_Scharnhorst
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon