The Battleship

Trunks · **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...

ninty · 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.

Trunks · 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.

Himmler · 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:

ninty · 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/

rdeyes · 03-05-2005, 03:21 PM

aegis is the reason for the season

imported_Fluffy_Bunny · 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:

Short Hand · 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.

Trunks · 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...

Short Hand · 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.

Trunks · 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...