What made Battleships obsolete?

While I can't upload this photo, this is what a single....note that single....modern Mk 48 torpedo does to a WW 2 light cruiser; in this case, the USS Wilkes Barrie. The Iowa class would fare little better against such a weapon.

http://digitool.fcla.edu/R/B5D4GT5H...ct_id=53620&local_base=GEN01&pds_handle=GUEST

You can enlarge the picture.

 

It's pretty cool when I can quote myself to make a point:

There is no ship in the world that is "Torpedo Proof".......I will reitterate though, that getting a torpedo within range and launching it is the issue.

 

I would have to agree that the BB has no place on todays oceans. Todays anti-ship systems would be to effective against such a large target. Torpedoes would be a very effective weapon if you could get it in range. Which is pretty significant. The Mk 48 has a range of over 5 miles and has a 650 lb warhead. Granted not many countries use torpedo boats they rely more on missle boats. But I'm sure it wouldn't be to hard for a third world country like Somalia to get their hands on some torpedoes and design a simple craft to deploy them.

 

There is more to operating from the fantail of a battleship than you alude to. Flight ops would be severely restricted due to lack of tie downs, a control station, hangers, refueling points, etc. Basically, other than for vertrep battleships lack the facilities to perform flight operations.

Modern torpedoes have ranges upwards of 75,000 yards or more and can be launched by a submarine from almost any depth. Lacking sonar and being rather noisy ships, battleships are basically in the submariner's vinacular: targets.

Asbestos was removed in the 80's refits. The accomidations are generally not a problem as the crew is much smaller today than in WW 2. But, given their age most of the systems for the original guns are very near impossible to fix when they break. Manuals don't exist for much of those systems. All the parts would have to be custom made. For example, much of the time the Iowa's were last in serivce the #3 turret (aft) was non-operational or barely operational as it was being used for parts to keep the other two up and running.
Trained crew are also a problem. This lack of training was largely at fault in the Iowa gun explosion accident.
Other problems include: A lack of suitable powder due to lack of manufacturing facilities. Modern naval guns don't use the double base nitrocellouse powder that the 16" guns take. Bagging is also a problem as silk and suitable silk substitutes are not readily available at reasonable prices.
Barrel wear is a problem. The lack of shells in the supply system is a problem. Casting new ones would be a major and costly undertaking.


You might also note that the Iowa's belt is only 12.6" thick. Even a crudely constructed shaped charge like the one that detonated against the USS Cole could blow a hole through it. Also, if it failed to do so much of the explosion would have vented into the torpedo defense system as the Iowa's belt is internal to the hull. This likely would have resulted in significant damage to the engineering spaces.

Basically, the Iowas are obsolete and of no value in modern naval combat.

 

I said I liked the thesis and did not support his varacity. I gave no support to his design modifications. Besides an M113 will not fit in the back of a CH-46.

If your Soamli pirates can have submarines and torpedos My Navy can have a battle wagon.

Besides Iowa has sonar and would even have the latest sonar if put back into service.

No actually .............asbestos was remediated in the 80's. Still a lot of asbestos and lead in those puppies.

You have never been on a Naval vessel have you?

There are spare barrels..........and this is only a problem if the guns are not upgraded to ERGM- or Extended Range Guided Munitions , Long Range Land Attack Projectiles- LRLAP or the BTERM- Ballistic Tragectory Extended Range Minition

Accidents happen...........blaming that for the BB's getting moth balled or as an excuse not to use them is like saying building shouldn't be taller than 15 Stories so people don't fly planes in to them.

That 12.6" in addition to the 6" that was already in place as part of the original design. In anycase I am sure it would be replaced by, more effective, reactive armor.

I guess you're right.........that's why the Navy is keeping them around along with all the spare parts.

 

I have actually been aboard an operational battleship, and yeah they do project an aura of power, but realistically you can't solve modern military problems with auras and nostalgia.

Obsolete battleships represent huge investments and are kept in reserve just in case some unforeseen mission might arise in which they could prove useful. If battleships aren't obsolete, why does the Navy and Congress not spend the considerable money it takes to keep them on active status?

If modern warships have no advantages over battleships, other than having no asbestos in their construction, why have thousands of warships been built over the last 65 years while not a single new battleship has slid down the ways? It's ridiculous to assert that except for the presence of asbestos that battleships would still be operational when no navy has seen a justification for building one in six and a half decades.

 

Frankly, I don't know if that statement is correct or not. I'd like to see some authoritative evidence to back up that assertion.

But what the hell difference does it make? Given all the other weapons systems available today, parading up and down within twenty miles of an enemy coast isn't a crucial arbiter of victory, and probably isn't even relevant. If that's all battleships are good for, then they are as obsolete as wooden sailing warships.

 

Because until 1992 there were 4 in service. All 4, although having been stricken from the Naval Ships Roster, are maintained in a manner that would permit their being returned to service.

Asbestos Abatement coupled with Modernization and reduction in the size of the military, under the administration of the time, it was more financialy viable to make more smaller ships than upgrade the BB's.

 

um... what's wrong with asbestos? the danger to it is mostly fear rather than fact. i thought asbestos has been approved for use in the US once again?

 

If I may intrude, how many BBs were sunk by CVs, and vice versa?

 

I found this while I was doing some digging around the other day.
from Battleships by Stanley Sandler, pg 150

What sank the others?

 

Mutsu blew up on her own. Fuso was sunk by destroyer torpedoes. I'm not sure what other ships are included. Some were destroyed by mines for instance which may not be included.

 

That leaves 51 others to be captured or scuttled? Unless his use of "loss" means something else.

Stop it......lol

 

So what? No navy wants to discard a ship as expensive to build as a battleship if there is any chance that it may still be useful. That doesn't mean that missions still exist that only battleships can perform or that a battleship in reserve would be returned to service as a battleship. They might even be used as targets some day. Many obsolete ships are maintained in reserve, sometimes for decades after their service as a frontline ship is no longer a reasonable proposition. Maintaining battleships in reserve does not mean that they are not obsolete or that they can effectively fight pirates, take on CVBG's, or win the next war.

Well, that's progress, anyway. Admitting that battleships are not "financially viable" is another way of saying they are obsolete. If they weren't, navies would have been building new battleships (without asbestos) over the last 65 years. To the best of my knowledge, no one has.

 

In order to answer that question, we would have to know what is meant by the "112 lost ironclads, battleships and dreadnoughts"; the ships would have to be named and the term "lost" defined. I suspect "lost" is inclusive and means the ship is no longer in existence as a ship. That would mean, the majority of these vessels were probably scrapped, or, in a few cases, converted to a museum.

Battleships: an illustrated history ... - Google Book Search

 

Why would a BB take on a Carrier Battle Group alone?

I believe there was a condition in the surrender documents of WW2 that prohibited "aggressor nations" from building ships in excess of a specific size.
Battleships are still a viable weapons platform that could accomplish many of the same tasks smaller ships take on. I would trade few Destroyers and Frigates for a BB anyday.BB's still have a lot of life left in them.

BB's will never be towed to sea for targets again. Sunk for an artificial reef maybe.

Brad

 

I know that Japan was prevented from developing offensive weapons and Germany was occupied after WW2 so I am thinking there was something somewhere written that prevented them from being built.

Why would you send 1 BB against a Battle Group? that's just silly. Even if there was reason to send a BB against a carrier battle group I bet there would be a line of skippers volunteering to command the BB.

 

So you really don't know whether there was a specific treaty clause prohibiting the former Axis powers from building battleships; you're just guessing. The only legal constraint I'm aware of that prevented Japan from building battleships was it's own post-war constitution. Don't know about Germany, but that is a red herring anyway.

No navy in the world has built a battleship for 65 years, not because of treaties or legal restraints, but because they are obsolete, not cost effective, and have no mission that can't be fulfilled by far less expensive vessels.

The question is moot.

Battleships are obsolete, and no one is going to send one BB or a half a dozen against against a CV force. The last navy that tried that ended up getting waxed. That's why BB's are no longer being built and the last two remaining (Iowa and Wisconsin) have been struck from the Naval Register of Warships for donation as museum ships. Congress has stipulated that whoever receives these two ships must maintain them to a level that would allow the USN to reactivate them in case of need, even though the US Navy has stated it doesn't need them and won't in the future, and estimates that reactivation would take 20 to 40 months. This stipulation practically grantees that Iowa and Wisconsin will never be converted to museum ships because of the cost of maintenance.

 

Thats because Satan Clause is out there and Jason lives and there may come a time that you need the silver bullet, or the wooden stake, to drive in the heart of pure evil.

You can throw as much technology as you want to at a problem and never solve it. The final equation results in the sum of being able to destroy the enemy's will to fight.

Sure an F-18 Super Hornet can drop a 500lb guided bomb in a bad guys bathroom window and cause a moment of "WOW!" ; but, if you park a battleship in the badguys front yard and obliterate everyone that the bad guy has come into contact with since the third grade then you send a message.

And another thing: it's not the ship that make a carrier effective it's the airwing embarked on the carrier that makes it effective, take away the planes and you have 4 1/2 acres of wasted space.. Airplanes do not win wars.