And once again, let me state something I said quite clearly at the very start. I suggest you actually read what I had said, instead of simply thinking that because I said the word "Battleship", I am talking about the Iowa class BB ships. Remember, it is the mission that determins what a ship is, not what it looks like or what kind of and how many guns it has. Although I will admit, it has been an experience to see how some in here think. How they automatically knee-jerk when hearing a certain word, and do not even bother to read or think past that one word. And saying "never again" is a rather stupid thing to state. They also said no more massive beach landings after Galiopli. Well, they were wrong there. And that the World War was the "War to end all wars". Yea, we saw how that worked out. Or that "Atomic weapons would make wars obsolete". Nope, wrong again. So forgive me if I do not take you all that seriously at all here. Well, look at body armor for a start. We used to send soldiers into battle just in their skin, then various forms of armor were developed. Then they all went away again. But guess what? Today body armor is back yet again And guess what every soldier still carries into battle even into the 21st century? Well, I'll be damned if that does not look like one of the clumsiest spears ever designed. Germany was to be honest led by a lunatic. There is no other way to describe a nation that designed and built the Panzer VIII Mouse, and designed to build the Landkreuzer P. 1000 "Ratte". And this does not even go into the idea of the Landkreuzer P 1500 Monster. A self-propelled tank with an 80cm (31.5) inch cannon. Germany was a nation that was insane at the time, led by a crazy man. As far as I am aware, nobody anywhere in here is even proposing to do anything even close to this (well, other then you that is). What is interesting is that I am proposing a ship that is smaller then our previous battleships, with few guns of a smaller caliber. Yet you go off saying we should build ships even bigger. Is this what is known as a "false flag offensive"?
A lot of BS talking concerning AT grenades and reactive armor as of lately. 1)The one saying that shaped charge warheads use "plasma cutting effect" basically admits his own incompetence in the question. The shaped charge does not depend in any way on heating or melting for its effectiveness, countarary to popular beliefs, the effect is purely of kinetic nature. Under extensive pressure, which exceeds yield strength, the metal in the charge stars to interfere with the target's armor like a liqud, while technically NOT being molten. 2)Explosion is not the factor, which contributes most to ERA protective qualities. It is mosly used to throw a metal plate towards the cumulative jet/APFDS, which indeed weakens/deforms the said penetrator. The likes of Kontakt-5 work that way. These indeed require a significant layer of armor behind them so they don't destroy the vehicle by themselves. However there are other designs of reactive armor, like non-explosive reactive armor (NERA), which is used on Merkava 4 tanks as well as some APCs. The particular one does NOT need a significant armored structure behind it because no explosive is being used. The other notable example is a Ukranian-produced "Nozh" reactive armor, which is, in fact, a number of shaped charges attached to a metal plate. It is supposed to detonate and cut the incoming projectile with it's own cumulative jets when being hit. The effectivenes of the particular sheme is being argued and discussed.
Just a FYI post: It's all WW ll era but it was the type of armor that was around and used on naval ships. Just a couple of excerpts:
Because armor has all but disapeared on ships? Certainly better than "corrosive salt water", IMO. Where did you get that? For the reactive armor debate, please take it to the poster up above, who seems more into it than me. Let me just say that I rest my case. Yeah but at the same time, if you let the ennemy out-tech you, you are not improving these sailors' chances. Pardon me? AP "technology" can be put into a 6mm bullet. It is simply an outer case that penetrates the armor while "spitting" its charge into the newly made orifice. It wasn't the payload that was revolutionnary on the Fritz X (which efforlessly pierced the deck armor of a modern BB); It was its guiding system (now obsolete by today's standards). It's not like its a forgotten secret like Greek Fire - it was simply ruled out as a naval weapon, since it can pass throught an unarmored ship without exploding. And, anyway, since this air screen you talk about is so effective (yeah, sure), then why the need for any armor at all? (Mushroom, what are your sources that say that the Russians peeded their shorts when the Iowas were pulled out of mothballing? I don't think they did, man.) Exocet missile were not 3rd world at that time. Argentine was quite respectable militarly, actually. They had big ships, and good aircrafts - Not comparable to a superpower's, of course, but the Brits did make the mistrake of under-estimating them. They didn't have to use any AP ordnance because all the Brits were offering them were soft targets. Oh, sorry again - I thought you were the guy who said that armor on the Essexes made them more resistant to Kamikaze attacks than your ancestror's escort carrier. If it was the case, well you would have been wrong, again: the armor on the Essexes was good only versus surface gunfire (a silly notion IMO for a carrier that's usually escorted by a carrier group but heh what do I know, right?): They had no deck armor, which was considered a british oddity before the Midways, and that is where armor counted in their cases (along with TDS). Two inches over the vitals would be reasonnable. Armor would then account for 8-12% of the ship's weight. Acceptable, I guess, for such a rich nation. Okay Mushroom - I get it: You're the spider in the center of the web, when you speak the mighty listen da yada yadayadadada. Why do you feel the need to blow so hard? I'll tell you, you would impress me much, much more by getting your facts straighted out. For my part I ain't no Big Kahuna or even important, only an autodidact that knows when its time to listen. I do am an armchair admiral, and I am doing a dang good job at it - check it out.
OK, I do not have time to go through all of this. But let me hit on the major points. And let me start out with this gem: OK, first warning here. Trying to take me out of context is a very dangerous thing to do. Consider this your first, last, and only warning on this. Because I have absolutely no problem with backing up what I say. As well as calling somebody out who distorts what I said. Now, where in there did I ever say "peed their shorts"? Where did I even say anything even close to that? Well, interestingly enough, as can seen by my original statement, I said noting even close to that. I simply stated "their naval war plans became obsolete". I did not in any way imply that they were scared, or that they were panicking because we returned the BB class ships to service. Simply that their current warplans became obsolete. And this is true. But sorry, I am largely ignoring your post, because it is pretty much more of the same. There is no "poster above", you are the one that said it should be done (after the claim about ablative armor). So please, no more passing the buck. You said it, own it, right or wrong. One thing I hate more then anything else is somebody that simply passes the buck . Yes, actually it was. Any weapon that can be purchased on an export license to "Third World Countries" is a "third world weapon". This is by simple definition. Yes, I am more then aware that France made the Exocet. I am also aware that at that time the UK used it. But so did every other nation from Iraq and Argentina to China and India. It is just another export mass0quantity inexpensive air to surface (or surface to surface) missile. They did not design it, they did not build it. They bought it, COTS. And mounted it on another COTS fighter. And as an FYI, COTS stants for "Commercial Off The Shelf". And sorry, this is the first time I have ever heard of a current military combat ship less then 5 years old refered to as a "soft target". Actually, you should realize this first, last, and always. My main mantra in here is "Research", and to question everything (even what I say), and conduct research for yourself. Now please, think long and hard about what I just said. What I want people do do for the most part is to become informed. To not just say something because that is what they have been told, or because that is what they believe, but to say things because that is what research supports. First, last, always. I really could not give a fig about politics. I could not care less about platforms, opinions, or beliefs,. I simply look at what the facts point out to. Plain and simple. And yes, I have my own beliefs. If you notice, I had earlier referenced the conflict as the "Malvinas". Sometimes people catch that, sometimes they do not. I actually first mey my wife of over 30 years during that conflict, and in the decades since have become somewhat of a minor expert in it (nowhere near my expertiese of WWII in the Pacific). And if you could not tell (even though you completely ignored it), I can spew out an amazing amount of information about that conflict, and the weapons used in it. And BTW, my wife is from Argentina. And her father at one time had worked for the Argentine Air Force in buildingtheir licensed copy of the C-130 cargo plane. So yea, I more often then not tend to look more on the Argentine side of that conflict. But then again, I have actually talked to Argentines who fought in that conflict, I have never talked to a Brit that fought there. But as usual, my post is almost 99 88/100% pure of political coprolie, and simply sticks to the facts. But please, do not ever try again in the future to try and distort or twist something that I have said. That is rather rude, and I take great offense to it. If I had intended to say that "the Russians peed their shorts", I would have to be high on huge amounts of crack. For one, I always am careful to use the correct term of "Soviets", not "Russians". And I did not even say anything close to what you claim I said. Yea, about to use the I button to be sure. One thing I tend to hate more then anything else, is somebody who twists my words for their own benefit. Please, just quite me in the future and respond to the quote. DO not even attempt to paraphrase it into something I did not even come close to saying.
Sorry, but had to bring this up again because it made me laugh. Actually, you are not doing all that great of a job. I have checked it out, and "amateur" is really what it is. What you are doing is trying to deflect things to support your belief, and ignoring anything that you do not like. A real "Admiral" would consider everything, and make a decision based upon what the evidence supported. Now I am not saying that you should support my view, not even close. But the very things that you ignore really do stand out. And it shows that you are not un-biased at all, but letting your bias guide you to what you want to see and believe. Look up the Exocet, who made it, who used it, and how common it was. Look up how many nations used it, as well as the aircraft they were commonly use from. I think that you will find that most of them were indeed "third world nations", and that they wer enations with no capability themselves to make similar weapons themselves. Goodbye.
Whoa, your majesty; a thousands excuses: "(Mushroom, what are your sources that say that the Russians peeded their shorts when the Iowas were pulled out of mothballing? I don't think they did, man.)" really can't mean "So the BBs came out of mothballs again, and the Soviets realized that many of their naval war plans became instantly obsolete." IMO, the Soviets were much more worried by your nuclear carriers and subs, silly me. Do you you have any sourcing about "the Soviets realized that many of their naval war plans became instantly obsolete"? Yes there is. His handle is "KGB Agent". I could cram as much data as I can retain on reactive armor and become a "10 min expert", but I am not so full of (*)(*)(*)(*). I am not the one who would tell you that your post was wrong/uncomplete, including the line that your condescendly repeated twice in bold and big colour in the hope that it would enter my thick skull. I'm no expert in this kind of armor, well, not nearly as good as I can be on naval matters, quite simply. I'm just the guy that, when asked, favored this kind of armor over passive steel in modern warship conception, and I still do. Well, I do pass the buck sometimes, since instead of replies about the subject's point, all that I get is your resumé. What about "obsolete" AP ordnance? Does the stuff that you guys are giving out to Israel counts as third world war gear? At the time Argentine was one of the few nations that had a carrier (Brit-made Veinticino de Mayo), and one of the very few that had a cruiser (US-made General Belgrano, complete with 6" belt armor); Yes, they were WWII stock, but big ships nonetheless. Their aircrafts were modern Super Etandards, armed with Exocet missiles, both being no more than a decade behind in 1982. Military speaking, that's respectable, if I compare it to Canada's. I'd say the naval and aerial forces were not so disproportionate, not like in the 2003 Gulf War reprise. Then you must never have heard of unarmored ships. You really let such petty rethorics being in the way of the point? A shame.
Doezens of articles were published during the 1980's in the USNI "Proceedings" and papers written at the U.S. Naval War College on the Soviet Unions reaction to reactivating the four Iowas. Warships are built for a mission. The Soviets / Russians Slava class cruisers were built for two missions, to sink American super carriers with SS-N-12 supersonic, (Mach 2.5) 2,000 lb. warhead anti ship missiles. and for geo-politics, showing the flag (gunboat diplomacy) The Soviets were never able to develop a weapons platform to deal with the Iowas. The Soviets had nothing that could sink an Iowa. An Iowa class BB can put more tons of ordanance on target in just one hour than an entire aircraft carrier air wing could in 24 hours. The Iowa's were able to carry 32 nuclear tipped Tomahawk cruise missiles. The Russkies complained a lot about that. They also didn't like the psychological effect that the Iowa's had when showing the flag around the world when being used for geopolitical purposes. Carriers, submarines have little psychological impact when they are over the horizon or underwater and can't be seen.
Yeah, that is completely different to any other weapon system. It is not like they are being advertized using "stronkest, bestest, the enemy is terrified" adjectives every single time. Oh, wait, small reality check, actually they are advertised all the same among all countries, regarding all weapons. Yeah, chum-ple-tely unsinkable battleships suffered huge loses during WW2 from torpedo fire and usual bombs. Aircraft carriers completely kicked the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of the very idea of a battleship. All of sudden Iowa becomes chum-ple-tely unsinkable and invulnerable with all those nuclear-tipped torpedoes and 700-kg shaped warhead supersonic cruise missiles flying around. Highly irrelevant, considering poor accuracy and the need to get close to the shoreline. Taking into account Ticonderogas were already existing by the time Some Iowas were reactivated, this line is borderline stupid.
The United States Navy only lost two battleships during WW ll, the USS Arizona and the USS Oklahoma both were commissioned in 1916, old obsolete ships with old armor protection. Both were sunk by battle ship projectiles that were converted to bombs that were carried by Japanese aircraft. The other six battleships that were present at Pearl Harbor on 12-7-41 would go on the continue to fight because that's what battleships are designed to do, to take a massive beating, taking hits and not being sunk. If knocked out of action in combat to be able to return to port, repair the damage and go back to war. What makes the Iowa's different from all other battleships was their armor. . Poor accuracy ? I watched the USS New Jersey off of San Clemente Island conduct a fire mission. Couldn't see the New Jersey since it was beyond the horizon, but no adjustment was needed because it it was on target with the first round. A 16"/50 HC round when being used for NSFS (soft targets) if the round hits with in 100 yards of the target, you are on target and it's considered to be a direct hit. You first have the overpressure of the exploding round that destroys things and kills, wounds out to 300 yards and troops being permanently or temporarily (5 to 10 minutes) incapacitated, unable to fight out to 1/4 of a mile of the blast. Then the fragmentation pattern that goes out for hundreds of yards that kills and wounds. Guess what, Iowa class battleships can get up close and personal. What's the enemy going to do ? What weapon do they have to take an Iowa out of action ? By the time the Iowa's were decommissioned after the Soviet Union lost the Cold War" the range of the guns had been increased to 80 miles, there were laser guided rounds, the barrel life had been tripled. Experimentation had just began on using the 16" guns for ASW. Think of nine 1,900 lb projectiles with a FT (fuse time) laying a pattern set to go off at a sub's depth. But the main mission of the American battleship since 1942 has been providing naval shore fire support for U.S. Marines. And sometimes for the U.S. Army and ally troops. Naval shore gun bombardment is second. Naval surface warfare is third.
Interesting article, that sums up the pro-battleship crowd's points with effectiveness, but when it mentions the Russians, it's more to compare the two navies' philosophies, and suggest that a Iowa-class ship would inspire the same intimidation factor than the big Russian ships bristling with weaponry. He isn't wrong. Battleship can be sunk - they were, all the time, as soon as they were created, up until the day they were retired. It isn't easy, but it's definitely possible, by the very same means that were used before: Submarine and aircraft attacks, equipped with weapons for this precise task (often AP ordnance). That's how the Battleship got replaced by the Carrier as the king of the seas. I do understand the need for a bombardment vessel - I just think that a more modern, less costly vessel could do the job just as well, if not better, notably by cutting down on armor and with more efficient/modern rifles. Rather their speed. As a rule, American BBs were the ones with the biggest guns and the thickest armor. They acheived that by also being the slowest, which made them less efficient as carrier group ships. The Iowas achieved spectacular speed while retaining the firepower and armor of the preceding North Carolina and South Dakota classes, but it came with a cost: The Iowas are more fragile that its predecessors, because of the large areas of the ship that are not armored (and the fact that they have more machinery to protect). The Iowas, thus, should excel against other battleship's main guns but could take substancial structural damage from their secondary armement - wich was not unlike our newer ships in both caliber and rate of fire.
So what? Germans lost all their battleships, Brits lost some, Japanese ones shared the same destiny. Ironically that happened after their (japanese) carriers were sunked. Turns out 460 mm guns and 400-mm thick armor were already obsolete during WW2. A smart person would ask a question how taking the beating could be avoided in the first place. Aircraft carriers are one of the answers. No, what really makes them diferent is that USN was able to field enough cannon fodder and aircraft carriers to protect them. Yeah, too bad that historically only 1-2% of rounds were actually hitting something during naval engagements. Torpedoes. Anti-ship missiles. Heck, even bombs. Torpedoes did a wonderful job against battleships during WW2. Both Bismark and Yamato were sunken mostly with their effort and they were both considered superior to Iowas. This would be my top choice. Mach 2.25, 700 kg HE semi-penetration warhead. Proofs? Still irrelevant, btw. Anti-ship missiles perfectly well outrange them, even if they were firing to 80 miles distance. Well, I bet aircraft and missiles can do the same gob, just with more accuracy, going deeper to the enemy territory and without risking their carrier. So what? Not their main weaponary. Besides, Ticonderoga is capable of defending itself against aircraft, unlike floating graveyard aka Iowa.
Yep - firing from a moving platform on another moving platform was incredibly difficult with big gunfire. But the payloads were huge; as soon as a ship was hit, its performence suffered. Most of the ship lost to surface action in WWII were by such attrition. That's a mean can of worms right there. IMO, as long as Iowa can pelt Bismarck from a safe distance (and she can, given her superior speed), she wins. As for Yamato, the Iowas can win, but they will need more luck. Sure, A-10s are good, but they can put themselves at risk if the field is contested. In this case, a good old shore bombardment, such as the one a cruiser or a bigger gun-based surface ship is the best, IMMHO.
The Yamato and most especially the Bismarck were never considered equal much less superior to the Iowa class. In truth, the Iowa's were just about the only truly "modern" battleships built to the state of the art in World War Two.
The Iowas's were used as escorts for the fleet carriers during WW ll . It was the old battleships that were used during amphibious operations. The Iowa's were advertized to have a top speed of 32.5 knots but their true speed is classified. They have been known to reach 34 knots knots and scuttlebutt of even 36 or 37 knots. That could be because you are not a U.S. Marine or served during either WW ll, Korea, Vietnam or the first Gulf war. (Desert Storm)
Well some one really (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up in 1950 (Korean War); 1968 (Vietnam War); During the height of the Cold War (1980's); and during the first Gulf war. The iowa's went to war when they were activated and part of the fleet. FYI: The Bismark was scuttled not sunk by the British. SOP for the German navy back then like when the German battle cruiser Graf Spree was scuttled.
People forget that having top of the line battleships was already on the way out when World War Two begin. Largely because of costs, initial construction, operating, and crewing. Not even the naval oriented Japanese military could really afford to field a large force of top of the line battleships. Arguably only the U.S. and British fielded substantial numbers of top flight battleships. Even then the Royal Navy was guilty of repeatedly deploying "battlecruisers" as though they were battleships (Hood, Repulse) and suffering heavy losses. Thanks to nations not having serious numbers of top of the line battleships this meant a real deficit when it comes to sound operational procedures and strategic practices. Not to mention training deficiencies. The move to aircraft carrier centered naval operations was not simply because aircraft are faster than any warship but simple economics. Losing a couple of dozen carrier based fighters and bombers inevitably is less costly both in terms of personnel and equipment (as happened at Midway) than a single capital ship getting mauled. Much less sunk entirely. The economics argument though in no way means that battleships are not effective combat platforms.
*sigh* OK, and with this I am ending this sillyness. But here, some history. Yes, the Soviets reacted because we reactivated our Battleships. Because the Soviets had built the first (and were building a total of 5) Kirov class Battlecruisers. These were massive ships, over 250 meters in length, and with a large amount off ordinance. 20 SS-N-19 anti-ship missiles. 14 SS-N-14 ASW cruise missiles. 48 SS-300 SAM missiles. As well as 128 SA-N-9 SAM missiles and 40 OSA SAM missiles. Not to mention a twin 130mm cannon, 8 AK-630 CIWS guns, and more smaler guns and missiles. The purpose of the Kirov was to act as a stand-off platform to deter the presence of our Carriers. These ships by themselves were not heavily armored, but had enough forepower to negate most of that of a carrier fleet. Say if some kind of conflict was going on in Myopia and we were sailing a carrier fleet to there to give assistance. If the Soviets got there first, they could simply position a Kirov group off-shore, and then dare us too attack first or come closer. Stalemate. Neither side does anything. Depending on the situation, such a stalemate could be a "Soviet Win". It was because of the Kirov (which was largely untouchable by a carrier group of the era because of it's enormous firepower) that the US reactivated the Battleships. A Kirov class Battlecruiser could seriously damage, even destroy a Carrier Fleet of that era. However, it would not seriously damage an Iowa class Battleship. Hence, the Soviet proposed use of the Kirov was largely negated. Of the 6 ships planned in that class, 1 was cancelled, one was converted into a "Communications ship" (spy-electronics gathering), and only 4 Kirov were built. And the interest in this ship was largely lost. The Soviets only had 3 of them in service when it ceased to exist (the Russians would finally finish the last one in 1998, 12 years after it's keel was laid). And the former Kirov itself, it is in the process of being prepared for conversion to razorblades at this time. The ex-Frunze is in mothballs. The ex-Kalinin went into mothballs in 1999, and the Russians have been working on returning her to service for over a decade. Only the ex-Andropov is still in service. You see, this is typical in any kind of "arms race". In this case, Carriers cause a response in Battlescuisers. Which then caused a response in Battleships. But the Soviets knew they could not win this naval escalation if they tried to build even bigger and better Battleships, so they pretty much ended it right there. And the 3 Kirovv class ships that were built pretty much remained in service close to the USSR. Northern Fleet - Med - Baltic - Atlantic regions. These ships almost completely avoided the Pacific, where we had 3 BBs operating in the Pacific. You make such claims, and you do not even seem to know why they were reactivated in the 1980's in the first place. Maybe I should call for a drone battleship. That sounds like something you would jump all over. OK, now I want to simply smash my head against a wall, because obviously you have read absolutely nothing that has been said here, or do not even know what you are talking about. Here, let me say this very simply., after posting this statement from you once again: We have no more gun based surface ships! There, is that clear enough? The only Cruiser we have is the TICO class. And it only has 2 5" guns. How much of a bombardment do you think you are getting out of that? The very point of this entire thread is the fact that we do not have a single ship capable of giving any kind of gun based bonbardment, then after saying it is not needed you turn right around and say that such a bombardment is better then an A-10. Sorry, you simply can't have it both ways. Saying a Battleship and it's guns are obsolete, then turn right around and say that Naval Bonbardment is better then an air to ground attack aircraft. So true, they were all vastly inferior. Especially the Bismark. The Bismark was not really a Battleship. It was a unique ship that has been commonly called a "Pocket Battleship". In other words, a heavy armored cruiser, with Battleship guns. And it was not all that impressive of a ship, it's effect on the war was inconsequential, it was a failure of a design. Much the same with the Yamato class. Massive ships, overall poor design, rushed and poorly used, largely inconsequential in the war. Just because somebody calls a ship a "Battleship", that does not make it so. The Argentines frequently called the General Belgrano a "Battleship", but it was not. It was simply much more impressive of a "battle ship" then any other South American nation had at the time. Which is largely meaningless, since your top speed is really the top speed of the slowest ship in your fleet. The doubletalk is really giving me a headache. Goes on one moment about a need for bombardment, then how a "battleship" is not needed. Not once even paying a bit of attention to the fact that the ship I am mostly proposing (and I think you have agreed with me here) is not even a Battleship at all, but a Cruiser! As so many, he is getting all obsessed at the name itself, and ignoring the very fact that what I am talking about is a mission, not the ship to be used itself. Well, he can enjoy his conversations with KGB and a few others, because I no longer care.
Want to know something? Nobody could! Battleships are major surface combatants. They are material and labor intensive, and no nation can really build them during a major war. They simply take to long. Trick question here, but do you know how many Battleships the US had built during WWII? The answer is none. All 4 Iowa class ships were started before WWII. The only Battleships the US started after WWII broke out (USS Illinois and USS Kentucky) were abandoned and scrapped. A major warship like a Battleship is not worth being built after a war starts. At that point, your efforts go into ships like Destroyers, Subs, Transports, and the like. It takes years to build a major capitol ship, it takes less then 2 months to build a destroyer. So what you do when a war breaks out is largely operate with what capitol ships that you already have. The other "Capitol Ships" of WWII were a bit different. I am of course talking about the Carriers. Of the 24 Essex class carriers we built before and during the war, 1 was under construction, and 10 more were on order. And yes, we ordered a lot more of these. But by the end of the war, we got to where we could crank out an Essex class carrier in as little as 13 months. No matter what was done, it still took 3-4 years to build a Battleship. Arguably only the U.S. and British fielded substantial numbers of top flight battleships. Even then the Royal Navy was guilty of repeatedly deploying "battlecruisers" as though they were battleships (Hood, Repulse) and suffering heavy losses. Well, Battleships were used quite a bit into the 1950's. But very few nations could afford them so most scrapped them and that was that. Of all the nations in the world, only the US really had the kind of "mothball fleet" that allowed these ships to be held for decades, then pulled out for service once agian. Hell, I remember when our mothball fleet even still had WWII era destroyers and other era ships in it in the early 1990's. The move to aircraft carrier centered naval operations was not simply because aircraft are faster than any warship but simple economics. Losing a couple of dozen carrier based fighters and bombers inevitably is less costly both in terms of personnel and equipment (as happened at Midway) than a single capital ship getting mauled. Much less sunk entirely. The economics argument though in no way means that battleships are not effective combat platforms.[/QUOTE]
Stop - that's here that you're wrong. There will never be another surface duel between "battle ships" firing upon one another with good ole guns. Heck, that was already dépassé in 1943. Such ship will not fight one another, but rather aircrafts and missiles with a longer range than their main guns. If these ship are hard targets, AP ordnance will be used, and that's about all the difference there will be. I'm guessing more monetary concerns than the re-apparition of the Iowas are to blame here. Confused, maybe? I thought that this thread was about not re-activating the remaining leviathans but to actually design something that would be used mainly for shore bombardment. You propose something ressembling the Alaska-class, IIRC, well, I propose something like a battery of 10" guns, something like 8 of them, on a vessel without too much draught and lighter on armor. Now where did I go wrong. The most ironic about this is that I was actualy defending your point against a poster - KGB Agent - that doesn't for one bit believe in the need for such ships. Pardon me? The Bismarcks were battleships true and throught: Armored from bow to stern, and made for dishing it out close-range. A real brawler, there was nothing cruiser-like about the Bismarcks. They were structurally un-surpassed, and they fired a rather small but high-velocity shell that had facility in peircing the thickest vertical armor after an almost flat trajectory, with great accuracy and excellent dispersion to boot. My money's still on Iowa, like I wrote, but if Bismarck appears at close range, like in the Guadalcanal theatre, even an Iowa is done for. Even the Bismarck's secondaries would be a source of worry for Iowa as soon as they can find the range. Only two problems about the Bismarcks: First, Gernamy didn't needed such ships, ships that were brawlers. Germany needed more guerre de course-able ships, ships that could terrorize anything below a bona fide battleship while outrunning the later, something like the Scharnhorsts, at the most. Second problem: The shells. German 11" and 15" shells were defective to the point that 1 out of three didn't explode; you can find them everywhere from the battle of the River Plate up to the duel vs Prince of Wales. A hit with one of these weapons is not such a common thing that one can afford the luxury of 1/3 of them being duds. They were actually admirable ships, with quite advanced nautical qualities, even if they do were made rather quickly. The Iowas, too, were largely inconsequential in the war (as were nearly all US and Japanese BBs except for a select few). Now you can understand how I feel.
Not a big battleship fan myself, and I agree their war record is spotty and not that impressive considering their costs. Germany was never good at naval operations in its history, and with the WW I-WW II era they never achieved much competence at surface fleet warfare. Ironically, the most decisive naval battle for Germany in WW II was the 'Battle of the Barents Sea', where only two destroyers were lost total, an insignificant loss for such a major turning point in the war. http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/barents/default.aspx Conclusion At his Wolfsschanze headquarters, Hitler impatiently awaited news of Operation Rainbow. At 1147, the U-354 sent an ambiguous message reporting great success. Kummetz observed radio silence on his way back to Altenfjord, but after he anchored a series of operational mishaps prevented his report from being transmitted until late the following afternoon. By that time, Hitler had learned the news gleefully reported by the BBC. Ignoring the fact that his own contradictory orders were largely to blame for the timorous behavior of his commanders, he excoriated the blameless Admiral Krancke who had the misfortune to be the navy's representative at the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht Hauptquartier (the rough equivalent of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff). The failure of the operation was bad in itself, but Hitler interpreted the tardy report as an insubordinate unwillingness to report bad news. Großadmiral Raeder, who by this time knew what awaited him, was summoned to OKW headquarters, and Hitler's tirade began anew. With veins standing out on his neck he began a peroration which lasted nearly an hour and a half. This operation only confirmed what he had instinctively felt all along--that the surface fleet was completely useless and that it was poorly staffed and ineptly commanded. The three battleships Tirpitz, Schleswig-Holstein and Schlesien, the two pocket battleships Admiral Scheer and Lützow, the battle-cruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, the heavy cruisers Hipper and Prinz Eugen, and the light cruisers Emden, Köln, Leipzig, and Nürnberg would all be decommissioned and summarily scrapped. To the extent possible their guns would be converted to land use. Henceforth, the largest navy ship would be a destroyer and all emphasis would be on the u-boat fleet. Raeder was ordered to come back with a plan of implementation. Raeder couldn't believe that Hitler was serious--that the fleet he had assembled through much hard work and sacrifice would simply be sent to the scrap heap. So the plan he came back with was one last hurrah for the German fleet. In it he pointed out that Hitler's order would free up only about 300 officers and 8,500 rated sailors. The resulting scrap steel would meet only one-twentieth of Germany's requirement for one month. It would also divert 7,000 workers urgently needed elsewhere. Furthermore, the effect of all this on the submarine fleet would be minimal. For example, even if all the steel were to be used in building u-boats, only seven new boats could be built per month. And if the guns were to be used as coastal batteries, the first would not be ready for at least a year. In addition, most of the men made available would be unsuited to u-boat service. Therefore, Raeder argued, "I am convinced that the smaller nucleus fleet of destroyers would be unable to accomplish the task assigned to it. The decommissioning of our major assets will hand the enemy a substantial victory at no cost and will be seen by them as a lack of resolve." Hitler would have none of it. At this point, Göring, who was always eager to protect the Luftwaffe's interests at the expense of the other armed services pointed out that it required a large complement of fighters to shield the ships from enemy attack while they swung uselessly at their anchors in Norwegian fjords. And these planes were urgently needed on the eastern front. Raeder soon recognized that Hitler was not amenable to reason and in private conference reluctantly submitted his resignation. On 30 January 1943 he gave up his command and was given an honorary job as inspector-general. Although the ambitious Admiral Dönitz was among the most junior admirals in the navy, he was the commander of the u-boat force, so it was no surprise to anyone that he was named Raeder's successor. Like some U.S. Air Force generals who have argued that wars can be won entirely by air warfare, Dönitz had argued that u-boats could win the war against the Allies. But it took no more than a few months before he was himself arguing that the Tirpitz and the Scharnhorst should be retained. Hitler had a great deal of confidence in Dönitz because his u-boats were producing results, and the two ships were reprieved. Later, the rest of the capital ships were spared as well, ignominiously declared "obsolete". Ironically, the next time Scharnhorst sailed, it would be to attack a convoy escorted by the ONSLOW, the ORWELL, the SHEFFIELD, the JAMAICA and the battleship DUKE OF YORK Admiral Burnett's cruisers first sighted the Scharnhorst and in a completely one-sided battle she was sunk by the DUKE OF YORK.
Germany had one of the worst fleet operations histories in all of WWII. While their submarine operations were almost flawless in the early stages of the war, their surfact operations were almost always a disaster. For one thing, they rarely ever operated in strength. They also would build gigantic prestige ships, and not have the kind of support ships that were needed to provide full protection. Then they would finally send these ships out pretty much by themselves. Simply look at the Graf Spee. A rather powerful battlecruiser, she was out all alone when she started commerce raiding. Yea, she was a great ship, but she was no match for 1 heavy cruiser and 2 light cruisers. One thing that the US and Japan excelled in more then any other nations of that era was fleet operations. Italy and Germany with their backyards mostly being small bodies of water never really developed the fleet doctrine of the Pacific powers. England came close because of her wide spread Empire, but much of the UK fleet was controlled by her componant parts as well and did not always operate as a single fleet. But with the Pacific as their main body of water, both the US and Japan developed the doctrine to operate large groups of ships together in long ocean crossings. However, the statement that Germany was "never good at naval operations" is not quite true. Add the word "surface", and I would agree. But in 2 World Wars, there subsurface operations were considered by many even today to be the best of the era. And both times came close to crippling England.
Typical WASP POV. Giving their rather small navy, the Germans did relatively fine in WWII, when compared to Italy or France (who had a comparable force). A big fleet out in the open sea - that's not how the Kriegsmarine operated. If they did, they would have been easy pickings for the Brits. As the lesser naval power, the only way thje German navy could operate was by raiding, and by sending as many as those raiders in different directions at the same time. Thus, they could bottle up the entire UK fleet, inflicting them terrible operation costs. Tirpitz alone held up something like 4 british battleships near the North Sea, battleships that would have been quite useful in the Mediteranean or near Singapour instead. Now there's a task that only a battleship could fill, that of a fleet-in-being. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau often operated in pair, and have a pretty impressive record. No Brit BB was fast enough to catch them. The Altantic naval war was very different than the Pacific's. If you define Graf Spee as a battlecruiser, it's the smallest ever built. And yes, she proved more than a match fior the three cruisers that faced her at River Plate: She all but sunk Exeter, despite numerous duds. Exeter was almost a total loss, and was rebuilt purely for propaganda reasons. The two Leanders didn't fare much better once Exeter was out, and it was they who retreated from the battle (they had a sizeable speed advantage over Graf Spee) licking their wounds (half of the main battery was knocked out on Ajax). Meanwhile Graf Spee had taken but minor damage. Graf Spee was not beaten by any Commonwealth guns: It was scuttled by his own crew in non-combat, following a successful propaganda operation. That you WASPs still write off River Plate as a "British victory" tells volume about chauvinism. Germany also won Jutland in WWI, dammit.
