Hello all, here is today's article posted on TheArmoryLife.com. It is titled “Were Battleships Just Big Targets?” and can be found at https://www.thearmorylife.com/why-are-battleships-obsolete/.
Were Battleships Just Big Targets?
- Thread starter Mike H.
- Start date
Don't know if I totally agree the battleship is dead. As with the B-52 or BUFF Big Ugly Fat Fellow (last word replaceable) will still be picking up the B-2 Pilots when they are dropped off at Boneyard in AZ. Has the mission changed, yes and they are a bullet magnet, I would argue with the current trend for drone attacks, may hold up well with its armor with some upgrades. The problem is precision as it doesn't need just one hit now, with the swarm of precision weapons fired hundred miles away.
But any floating system has to deal with that and with less armor. With proper modern defensive systems, it could become Dreadnought again... Add in better propulsion system and you have a floating tank able to take the occasional strike from an unintercepted weapon or at least better protection for the Crew, than an aluminum hull structures. As witnessed in the Falkland's conflict. Put reactive armor over that 18 inches of steel, better intercept criteria systems that are on the current Frigates with both electronic and kinetic, yeah Baby lets rock...
Hey, it beat the Aliens in movie Battleship didn't it? LOL
But any floating system has to deal with that and with less armor. With proper modern defensive systems, it could become Dreadnought again... Add in better propulsion system and you have a floating tank able to take the occasional strike from an unintercepted weapon or at least better protection for the Crew, than an aluminum hull structures. As witnessed in the Falkland's conflict. Put reactive armor over that 18 inches of steel, better intercept criteria systems that are on the current Frigates with both electronic and kinetic, yeah Baby lets rock...
Hey, it beat the Aliens in movie Battleship didn't it? LOL
Johnny Yuma
Operator
When the Sheffield was sunk, that was the end of the battle wagons
Believe the Sheffield was a missile frigate or destroyer if you like... But many others could be used as examples.
Cedric
Professional
Tsushima was the last decisive engagement of battleships? I must have missed something:
- Bismark vs. HMS Hood and Prince of Wales
- Bismark vs. KGV and Rodney
- USS George Washington vs. IJN Kirishima
The last engagement mentioned brings to light that US battle wagons and heavy cruisers held the line until our new aircraft carriers could reinforce our stretched thin force of 3-5 carriers. Also, battleships provided much needed AA protection to carriers as they could keep up with them. And don't forget naval gunfire support. I'm not saying we should bring them back, but lets not minimize their past contributions and capabilities.
- Bismark vs. HMS Hood and Prince of Wales
- Bismark vs. KGV and Rodney
- USS George Washington vs. IJN Kirishima
The last engagement mentioned brings to light that US battle wagons and heavy cruisers held the line until our new aircraft carriers could reinforce our stretched thin force of 3-5 carriers. Also, battleships provided much needed AA protection to carriers as they could keep up with them. And don't forget naval gunfire support. I'm not saying we should bring them back, but lets not minimize their past contributions and capabilities.
Grayfox
Professional
Back in the days when navies slugged it out over long distances, the battleship was king. Often sinking enemy ships while still out of range of their guns. But then came aircraft and soon after missiles. Since the Korean war, a battleship's only real use was heavy shore bombardment. We now have smaller, faster ships that can do that with missiles and more accurately too.
Sadly, the battleship's days are over.
Sadly, the battleship's days are over.
I remember when the Brits were in the the Falkens by an Exocet on the ship went down, They interviewed the captain of USS New Jersey (only battleship in commission at the time) and the excited little news weenie says “what would you do if your ship was hit by an Exocet”, and the Captain answered “probably give the same command that was given when USS Missouri was hit by a kamakazi in WW2, “sweepers man your brooms”
. News weenies was all a twitter “but one sank that British ship”. Captain “ yes it did, but there is a lot of difference 1” thick aluminum and 16” of copper nickel steel. This ship was built to survive multiple hits from 3500 lb armour piercing shells, a 250lb high explosive isn’t going to do much”. Kinda sums it up.
. News weenies was all a twitter “but one sank that British ship”. Captain “ yes it did, but there is a lot of difference 1” thick aluminum and 16” of copper nickel steel. This ship was built to survive multiple hits from 3500 lb armour piercing shells, a 250lb high explosive isn’t going to do much”. Kinda sums it up.Missiles are expensive NGF isn’t. Got off active duty in1971 and transitioned to the USMC reservis, specifically, HQ, 1/14th Marines. I headed the NGF Section for three years. Went to schools and directed some 5”/38 at Coronado Island. Our job was to coordinate with any NGF assets. I would posit that the potential rounds available on a 5”/54 destroyer would be more than any missiles she would carry or use. There was always a %age below which the ship would not go below in case of self defense.Back in the days when navies slugged it out over long distances, the battleship was king. Often sinking enemy ships while still out of range of their guns. But then came aircraft and soon after missiles. Since the Korean war, a battleship's only real use was heavy shore bombardment. We now have smaller, faster ships that can do that with missiles and more accurately too.
Sadly, the battleship's days are over.
Talyn
SAINT
First, a silly title to this article.
Second, calling the Battle of Tsushima as the the only truly decisive engagement fought between modern steel battleships, is pretty stilly, because #1 none of those ships were "modern battleships". And, implying the same in the Dardanelles campaign since most of the ships lots there were due to mines not ship to ship gun fire.
The "real" truly decisive engagement between battleships (non-modern) was the Battle of Jutland (1916) between the British and German battleships in WW1.
en.wikipedia.org
Only the post-treaty WW2 battleships can be the only ones considered modern, and the only meeting of battleships in that category was the Bismarck and HMS Prince of Wales/HMS King George V engagements.
Third, All ships are "power-projection" platforms whether the old Battleships in the pre-WW2 era that were then replaced by the aircraft carrier in WW2 to present day. And in order to do so they were/are all big in order to do so.
Forth, more small warships (i.e. destroyers, etc.) were attacked & sunk than BIG cruisers, aircraft carriers & battleships in WW2. But, of course the latter are BIG targets.
And nowadays "Destroyers" are the size of WW2 cruisers in order to pack a lot of various missiles for defense and "power-projection".
Lastly, today, a anti-ship missile selects it's target based on programing vs. size so all ships are..."just big targets".
My .02
Second, calling the Battle of Tsushima as the the only truly decisive engagement fought between modern steel battleships, is pretty stilly, because #1 none of those ships were "modern battleships". And, implying the same in the Dardanelles campaign since most of the ships lots there were due to mines not ship to ship gun fire.
The "real" truly decisive engagement between battleships (non-modern) was the Battle of Jutland (1916) between the British and German battleships in WW1.
Battle of Jutland - Wikipedia
Only the post-treaty WW2 battleships can be the only ones considered modern, and the only meeting of battleships in that category was the Bismarck and HMS Prince of Wales/HMS King George V engagements.
Third, All ships are "power-projection" platforms whether the old Battleships in the pre-WW2 era that were then replaced by the aircraft carrier in WW2 to present day. And in order to do so they were/are all big in order to do so.
Forth, more small warships (i.e. destroyers, etc.) were attacked & sunk than BIG cruisers, aircraft carriers & battleships in WW2. But, of course the latter are BIG targets.
And nowadays "Destroyers" are the size of WW2 cruisers in order to pack a lot of various missiles for defense and "power-projection".
Lastly, today, a anti-ship missile selects it's target based on programing vs. size so all ships are..."just big targets".
My .02
Last edited:
Some of the authors conclusions are suspect, such as a large size or large crew being a reason to not build battleships. Last I checked most navies are in fact building aircraft carriers that are both larger than battleships and have huge crews. Basically the modern navies build large "destroyers", which are really cruisers, that are stocked with missiles of varying uses and sometimes torpedo units as well. Helicopters adorn these ships and have proven useful to carrying antiship missiles and torpedo or bomb or cannon loadouts. The crews ARE much smaller in these destroyers since we now have automation but the crews for carriers whether helo or fix wing still are very large. This link is useful as well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_naval_battles_between_battleships
Talyn
SAINT
I forgot a later one...First, a silly title to this article.
Second, calling the Battle of Tsushima as the the only truly decisive engagement fought between modern steel battleships, is pretty stilly, because #1 none of those ships were "modern battleships". And, implying the same in the Dardanelles campaign since most of the ships lots there were due to mines not ship to ship gun fire.
The "real" truly decisive engagement between battleships (non-modern) was the Battle of Jutland (1916) between the British and German battleships in WW1.
Battle of Jutland - Wikipedia
Only the post-treaty WW2 battleships can be the only ones considered modern, and the only meeting of battleships in that category was the Bismarck and HMS Prince of Wales/HMS King George V engagements.
Third, All ships are "power-projection" platforms whether the old Battleships in the pre-WW2 era that were then replaced by the aircraft carrier in WW2 to present day. And in order to do so they were/are all big in order to do so.
Forth, more small warships (i.e. destroyers, etc.) were attacked & sunk than BIG cruisers, aircraft carriers & battleships in WW2. But, of course the latter are BIG targets.
And nowadays "Destroyers" are the size of WW2 cruisers in order to pack a lot of various missiles for defense and "power-projection".
Lastly, today, a anti-ship missile selects it's target based on programing vs. size so all ships are..."just big targets".
My .02
The Battle of North Cape....HMS Duke of York against Scharnhorst on 12/26/1943.
Battle of the North Cape - Wikipedia
Not quite an equal fight since the Scharnhorst only had 11 inch guns.
USMC6094
Professional
The Battlewagons were products of a different time.
You have to look at it from the POV of thier time.
They were the WMDs of thier Era, hence the Washington Treaty.
Did you know that the United Kingdom built battleships "to order", for South American countries, AND Japan? And for Imperial Russia...........
There will never another Era of ships like them, and I've read studies of how the Iowa Class ships are pretty much immune to modern ordnance, short of Nukes.
But, today a rocket assisted 155mm shell that's satellite guided is wonder weapon.
You have to look at it from the POV of thier time.
They were the WMDs of thier Era, hence the Washington Treaty.
Did you know that the United Kingdom built battleships "to order", for South American countries, AND Japan? And for Imperial Russia...........
There will never another Era of ships like them, and I've read studies of how the Iowa Class ships are pretty much immune to modern ordnance, short of Nukes.
But, today a rocket assisted 155mm shell that's satellite guided is wonder weapon.
One big (huge) difference is that the BB’s were designed to take a lot of punishment and survive. Today’s ships pack a LOT of firepower, BUT survivability is very poor. (Thinks Faukland islands the Brits experience with ONE Exocet, think USS Cole and a boat bomb. It’s doubtful if a WW2 Heavy cruiser (much less a battleship) would have experienced much damage from either (or both). Armor is expensive, and it’s just not used anymore.
Johnny Yuma
Operator
dang I thought it was a battleship.
List of 6 British Ships Sunk During the Falklands War - History Lists
A list of 6 British ships that were sunk during the Falklands War and a brief overview of their service during the 10-week war between Britain and Argentina.