Bring Back The Battleship ?

[daftandbarmy]

Keep in mind these ships were expected to be hit by shells weighing 2700lbs and survive and fight back, with modern self-defense systems, that becomes a serious target and would take a lot of resources to combat, not to mention they would not be alone, toss in a sub, Arleigh Burke and a few others, you have a potent force. The WWII Iowas could reach out to 32km, likely with modern guns they could throw out smaller but equally lethal shells to twice that distance and do it for days on end, before they would have to leave the theatre to resupply.

And AFAIK that was their main purpose in supporting amphibious landings: providing sea based artillery support, in enough depth 24/7 in all weather, to protect the bridgehead forces while artillery could be transferred from ship to shore in enough quantities to take over.

I met a guy who was in 1st Abn Div at D Day that loved battleships. They were their salvation during the tough fights to stem the German counterattacks over the Orne etc. And this during a campaign where the Allies had pretty much complete air supremacy.

However, if we see ourselves never having to do those kind of operations again, you probably don't need battleships.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It was more the BB was to dominate the sea, allowing for such operations and commerce to take place, they found their secondary niche in Long range Shore bombardment when coupled with radios and spotting aircraft. Some people speculate that the UK would have failed to re-take the Falklands via Port Stanley had the Argentinians brought the Belgarno over early and secured her in the harbour to provide fire support.

 

[NavyShooter]

I've been onboard the Texas, the Missouri, the Wisconsin, the New Jersey, and the North Carolina.

Amazing ships.  Amazing construction, and incredible firepower. 

But.

As proven by the Belgrano in 1982, just a target to modern submarines from well beyond the horizon.

As proven by Billy Mitchell in Project B in 1921, the necessity of air-cover is critical.  With modern over the horizon missiles, the aircraft wouldn't even need to get close. 

The age of the battleship was really the First World War, and the failure of the main fleets to fully engage in Jutland was, truly, the last time that lines of battle would face off in that fashion.  Yes, there's Guadalcanal, Savo Island, etc, but the reality is, Jutland was the apex, and after that, battleships were on the descendant, while aircraft carriers have been on the ascendant.

What has changed today that would bring rise to the battleships again?  Add more armour....which can simply be battered by more explosives.  Look at the Yamato.  Put all the torpedos into one side and roll it over.

Survivability in a modern battlefield at sea is not linked to armour, but sensors to find the enemy before they threaten you, and weapons able to engage that enemy once found. 

Putting a ship back to sea with a fuk-ton of armour is not the solution on today's battlefield.  Besides, what would we have to pay Irving to build it?  First we'd have to create our own Bethlehem Steel plant in Dartmouth from scratch....and then barge the plates of armour over to their shipyard (which they'd have to expand again) to weld together into a ship. 

Nope, can't see it.  Battleships were done in 1921.  After that, they were mostly targets, or shore bombardment units.

We'd be better off putting a bunch of "Rods from God" in space than floating a battlewagon:

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-06/

Space-based KEW's...basically a 'smart' crow-bar dropped from orbit with a guidance package.  Put enough of 'em up there and we'd be able to drop on demand in 15 minutes anywhere in the world.  Including through a battleship's armour.

NS

 

[Colin Parkinson]

As I recall the torpedo 21 inch Mark VIII is a updated 1925 design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_21_inch_torpedo#21_inch_Mark_VIII

So Old tech, met old tech and old tech won (and lost).

From wiki:
One of the torpedoes struck 10 to 15 metres (33 to 49 ft) aft of the bow, outside the area protected by either the ship's side armour or the internal anti-torpedo bulge. This blew off the ship's bow, but the internal torpedo bulkheads held and the forward powder magazine for the 40 mm gun did not detonate. It is believed that none of the ship's company were in that part of the ship at the time of the explosion.[17]

The second torpedo struck about three-quarters of the way along the ship, just outside the rear limit of the side armour plating. The torpedo punched through the side of the ship before exploding in the aft machine room. The explosion tore upward through two messes and a relaxation area called "the Soda Fountain" before finally ripping a 20-metre-long hole in the main deck. Later reports put the number of deaths in the area around the explosion at 275 men. After the explosion, the ship rapidly filled with smoke.[18] The explosion also damaged General Belgrano's electrical power system, preventing her from putting out a radio distress call.[19] Though the forward bulkheads held, water was rushing in through the hole created by the second torpedo and could not be pumped out because of the electrical power failure.[20] In addition, although the ship should have been "at action stations", she was sailing with the water-tight doors open.

The ship began to list to port and to sink towards the bow. Twenty minutes after the attack, at 16:24, Captain Bonzo ordered the crew to abandon ship. Inflatable life rafts were deployed, and the evacuation began without panic.[21]

The two escort ships were unaware of what was happening to General Belgrano, as they were out of touch with her in the gloom and had not seen the distress rockets or lamp signals.[19] Adding to the confusion, the crew of Bouchard felt an impact that was possibly the third torpedo striking at the end of its run (an examination of the ship later showed an impact mark consistent with a torpedo). The two ships continued on their course westward and began dropping depth charges. By the time the ships realised that something had happened to General Belgrano, it was already dark and the weather had worsened, scattering the life rafts.[19]

Argentine and Chilean ships rescued 772 men in all from 3 to 5 May. In total, 323 were killed in the attack: 321 members of the crew and two civilians who were on board at the time.[

So the the real failure here is training, command and judgement. Had the General Belgrano been stationed in the harbour with some ASW defenses, she would have been untouchable and could stopped the Brit advance with her guns and prevented a successfully counter invasion. New tech or old tech, piss poor planning, lack of competent leadership will get you killed.

 

[Halifax Tar]

As proven by the Belgrano in 1982, just a target to modern submarines from well beyond the horizon.

As proven by Billy Mitchell in Project B in 1921, the necessity of air-cover is critical.  With modern over the horizon missiles, the aircraft wouldn't even need to get close. 

Just a bit of nit picking here but the ARA General Belgrano was a WW2 era Brooklyn-Class Light Cruiser, manned by a conscript Navy and sunk at 37 years old.  She had no where near the capabilities of a BB. As well she was unescorted/unprotected and outside the "Total Exclusion Zone" when she was attacked an sunk. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgranote

The Billy Mitchell lead Project B wasn't as conclusive as Billy would have liked it to be.  These Pre-dreadnaught and WW1 era BBs were unmanned, stationary targets who didn't/couldn't fight back, and they were alone.  If there was ever a set of criteria that will ensure the wished outcomes, this was it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Mitchell#Project_B:_Anti-ship_bombing_demonstration

 

[tomahawk6]

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.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

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). 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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.

 

[Halifax Tar]

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

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

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.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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)

 

[Halifax Tar]

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. 

 

[Lumber]

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.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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.

 

[jollyjacktar]

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.

 

[Halifax Tar]

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.

 

[NavyShooter]

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

 

[Lumber]

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.

 

[jollyjacktar]

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.

 

[Lumber]

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.