Alliedassault           
FAQ Calendar
Go Back   Alliedassault > Lounge > Politics, Current Events & History
Reload this Page The Battleship
Politics, Current Events & History Debates on politics, current events, and world history.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
The Battleship
Old
  (#1)
Trunks is Offline
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1,410
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: USA
  Send a message via AIM to Trunks Send a message via MSN to Trunks Send a message via Yahoo to Trunks  
Default The Battleship - 03-05-2005, 12:54 PM

I was looking through several naval websites, including the US Navy and the Royal Navy, and I was suurprised to see that battleships dont have a place in modern naval combat. I really dont see y not... Instead of prior designs it would have a vast array of defensive and offensive missles, making it far more powerful and deadly than the run of the mill destroyer and cruiser. A modern day battleship would have to be fitted out with lots of anti aircraft armaments, but besides that I dont see y theyre not in use any more. The firepower they pack could easily decimate an aircraft carrier, and even several cruiers or destroyers... Just wondering if anyobdy else knows any more about this than i do...
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#2)
ninty is Offline
Major General
 
ninty's Avatar
 
Posts: 12,683
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Calgary
   
Default 03-05-2005, 01:08 PM

I don't really know that much about naval warfare, but I would say that a battleship would never get anywhere near a carrier group. Subs and cruisers would sink it before it knew what was happening.

Battleships were needed in teh early 20th century because the bigger the ship, the more guns you could fit on it, the more chance you had of sinking another battleship. Its not like that anymore. That analogy could be aligned with how in WWI and partly in WWII countries would just send swarms of troops to try to take over the enemy. Thats sort of like what a battleship is. Overwhelming with sheer force. But there are ways around that that made it obsolete. There are stealthy ships and quiet ships and all these ships that could sink a battleship like nothing. I guess agility and speed is needed more than sheer firepower.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#3)
Trunks is Offline
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1,410
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: USA
  Send a message via AIM to Trunks Send a message via MSN to Trunks Send a message via Yahoo to Trunks  
Default 03-05-2005, 01:14 PM

hmmm, you have a point, i guess... However, if destroyers and cruisers can have anti torpedo defence systems/anti submarine systems then y cant a battleship? And an average carrier, correect me if im wrong, has around 90 planes. Anti aircraft missles could be fired off at the aircraft, while main cannons would engage the enemy carrier... I understand what ur saying but what im trying to say is that f the military wanted to they could probably adapt... It may be because they dont want to spend so much money, at least in the amounts im thinking of, on a single ship, which is fiarly sensible i suppose.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#4)
Himmler is Offline
Major
 
Himmler's Avatar
 
Posts: 6,938
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Behind You...
  Send a message via AIM to Himmler  
Default 03-05-2005, 02:20 PM

i didnt read both posts just saw what you said.

are you kidding? how can you say battleships dont have a place in modern day naval combat? they do have about 3 or 4 anti-aircraft defenses, they have the tomahawk cruise missle which they can fire at targets from hundreds of miles away, they use the blackhawk heli to find targets over the horizon to fire at them. they also have a special radar that can see in 360° every second.

they are way beyond advanced now adays compared to the ww2 battleships its not even funny. we just havent had a chance to use them.

oh and btw i watched a episode on how a battleship works last night on the military channel. rock:
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#5)
ninty is Offline
Major General
 
ninty's Avatar
 
Posts: 12,683
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Calgary
   
Default 03-05-2005, 03:00 PM

But there aren't any Battleships. Thats why they don't have a place:

eek:

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/battleships/
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#6)
rdeyes is Offline
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1,459
Join Date: May 2003
Location: anchorage,ak
 Send a message via ICQ to rdeyes Send a message via Yahoo to rdeyes  
Default 03-05-2005, 03:21 PM

aegis is the reason for the season
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#7)
imported_Fluffy_Bunny is Offline
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,564
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Reading 'Country Life' magazine in a crack wh0res brothel in Soho, London
  Send a message via MSN to imported_Fluffy_Bunny  
Default 03-05-2005, 03:58 PM

The Battleship is certainly obsolete, you only have to look at the sinking of HMS Prince of Wales & HMS Repluse by Imperial Jap Navy aircraft in WW2 to realise how vulnerable they are. They provide far too large a target for torpdeos, bombs and missiles and their armament, whilst being good for land bombardment is also obsolete against naval craft.

The destoyers and frigates of the Royal and U.S. Navy pack more punch than the battleship, this picture shows the results of a ship that received a direct hit by a Harpoon missile, carried by the USN & Royal Navy, as you can see, the missile went through the ship like it wasn't even there.

[img]http://web.umr.edu/~rogersda/military_service/Harpoon%20damage.jpg[/img]

This photo shows the results of HMS Sheffield being hit by an exocet (damn french missile) during the Falklands War.

[img]http://www.rindzunski.com/or/Ressources/sheffield.jpg[/img]

It was only after the Falklands that modern ships were equipped with missile defense systems & gatling guns, goalkeeper, phalanx etc. But a battleships still provides far too large, expensive and poor target imho. The shells fired by a battleship could still be engaged and destroyed by the goalkeeper gun system and they just dont have the range or sophistication compared to missiles.

Yours most obliged &tc

Fluffy Bunny, HMS President, GSSR AB-2 rock:
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#8)
Short Hand is Offline
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 10,721
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: C-eH-N-eH-D-eH eH?
   
Default 03-05-2005, 09:40 PM

If you think about it, what woulb be the point of one nowadays ? why put so much fire power concentrated in one space ? makes an easy target to disable, and cause a crippling blow to any taskforce. The last deployment, that I have ever heard of was the USS Arizona in the first gulf war. It pounded shorelines with its guns.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#9)
Trunks is Offline
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1,410
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: USA
  Send a message via AIM to Trunks Send a message via MSN to Trunks Send a message via Yahoo to Trunks  
Default 03-05-2005, 09:57 PM

What im thinking is that a properly made battleship could be extrmely deadly. It would have at least double or triple the defensive and offensive capabilities of a destroyer, at least in ship to ship combat, because of the larger amount of missle launchers etc. And aircaft wouldnt pose too much of a threat because of anti air mini guns and SAM's... And as for battle ships being sunk in world war 2, if I remeber correctly, there was one Japanese flagship/battleship that sunk at least 50 or so enemy vessles before it was sunk...
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#10)
Short Hand is Offline
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 10,721
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: C-eH-N-eH-D-eH eH?
   
Default 03-06-2005, 12:50 AM

to big a target with to much on it = to much of a crippling blow to any force it serves with period.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#11)
Trunks is Offline
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1,410
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: USA
  Send a message via AIM to Trunks Send a message via MSN to Trunks Send a message via Yahoo to Trunks  
Default 03-06-2005, 10:04 AM

[quote="Short Hand":5738a]to big a target with to much on it = to much of a crippling blow to any force it serves with period.[/quote:5738a]true, i suppose...
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#12)
rdeyes is Offline
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1,459
Join Date: May 2003
Location: anchorage,ak
 Send a message via ICQ to rdeyes Send a message via Yahoo to rdeyes  
Default 03-06-2005, 04:45 PM

[quote=Trunks]
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Short Hand":298cc
to big a target with to much on it = to much of a crippling blow to any force it serves with period.
true, i suppose...[/quote:298cc]

one word - submarine
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#13)
Trunks is Offline
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1,410
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: USA
  Send a message via AIM to Trunks Send a message via MSN to Trunks Send a message via Yahoo to Trunks  
Default 03-07-2005, 02:14 PM

[quote=rdeyes]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trunks
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Short Hand":897ff
to big a target with to much on it = to much of a crippling blow to any force it serves with period.
true, i suppose...
one word - submarine[/quote:897ff]sigh, submarines arent invincible, there are ways to combat them.
  
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.12 by ScriptzBin
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
© 1998 - 2007 by Rudedog Productions | All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners. All rights reserved.