What made Battleships obsolete?

Neither does a 65+ year old battleship.

 

No, but it does provide a nice place to conduct surrender ceremonies

 

I don't know, you might want to ask the Serbs about that.

Battleships are no more effective at "obliterating everyone that the bad guy has come into contact with since the third grade", than aircraft. In many cases they are much less so because they can't even get close enough to do squat. You keep talking like the battleship is some sort of "ultimate" weapon; it's not and hasn't been since about 1942.

In any case, battleships are not effective at fighting pirates and never have been. There is not one instance in history where battleships proved their worth against pirates despite your fantasies.

 

Here is what Tim McNulty, a reporter, said of the New Jersey's last operational shore bombardments in Lebanon

 

SO you don't like my opinion and reject it as fantasy..... Wow I am crushed. Why do you feel the need to object to my opinion? It's my opinion and I am entitled to it. My opinion is not hurting you; yet, you are somehow offended by it.

Why do you care if I think Battleships are a viable weapons platform?
Why is your opinion more valuable than mine?

I like Battleships and I would rather see them put into service than watch them rust away tied to a pier.

 

cite your source

 

That a request or demand?
either way, happily! You think I made it up? I don't lie!
USS New Jersey (BB-62)

So when did this become an opinion thread? is not the topic of discussion in this thread on why or if battleships are obsolete?

Because that is the topic of discussion.

That is a very nice sentiment. I feel the same way, except when you place all factors on paper and look at the pro's and con's it is just not viable for reasons already discussed.

 

Didn't mean to imply you were. I just wanted the context of the statement you posted. Tim McNulty was a reporter for the Chicago Tribune.

Here is the rest of story your statement was taken from:


On 28 November — after 23 October, 1983 Beirut barracks bombing — the U.S. government announced that "New Jersey" would be retained off Beirut although her crew would be rotated. On 14 December, "New Jersey" fired 11 projectiles from her 16 inch (406 mm) guns at hostile positions inland of Beirut. These were the first 16 inch (406 mm) shells fired for effect anywhere in the world since "New Jersey" ended her time on the gunline in Vietnam in 1969. cite web |url=http://navysite.de/bb/bb62.htm |title=USS New Jersey (BB 62) |publisher=navysite.de|accessdate=2005-05-27</I>] This shelling was in response to attacks on U.S. reconnaissance planes by Syrian/Druze antiaircraft batteries. [cite news|url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,926419,00.html |title=Familiar Fingerprints| accessdate=2008-10-05 |author=Barry Hillenbrand, William E. Smith and Dean Brelis| publisher=Time Magazine]
On 8 February 1984, "New Jersey" fired almost 300 shells at Druze and Syrian positions in the Bekaa valley east of Beirut. Some 30 of these massive projectiles rained down on a Syrian command post, killing the general commanding Syrian forces in Lebanon and several other senior officers. This was the heaviest shore bombardment since the Korean War. Although "New Jersey" performed her job expertly during the intervention in Lebanon some have criticized the decision to have "New Jersey" shell Druze and Syrian forces. Members of this camp allege that this action forced a shift in the previously neutral U.S. forces by convincing local Lebanese Muslims that the United States had taken the Christian side; [cite web |url=http://countrystudies.us/lebanon/104.htm |title=Lebanon - United States |accessdate=2007-05-25 |author=U.S. Library of Congress] "New Jersey"'s shells had killed hundreds of people, mostly Shiites and Druze. [cite web |url=http://www.debianhelp.org/node/1183 |title=Do it now. For Israel |accessdate=2005-05-25 |last=Glass |first=Charles |year=2006 |month=July |authorlink=Charles Glass|publisher=debianhelp.org] In his memoir, General Colin Powell (at the time an assistant to Caspar Weinberger) noted that "When the shells started falling on the Shiites, they assumed the American ‘referee’ had taken sides." [cite web |url=http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/032507.html |title=Fatal Flaws of Bush's 'Tough-Guy-ism' |accessdate=2005-05-25 |last=Parry |first=Robert |year=2007 |month=March |publisher=Consortiumnews.com] [Powell, Colin A. and Joseph Persico, "My American Journey", Ballantine, ISBN 0-345-40728-8]

It's always an opinion especially when it is prefaced with : "I"

I don't see it that way. I think Battleships are still a viable weapons platform especially when the long reach of a carrier is not needed. BBs fill a niche where Destroyers are not enough and Carriers are too much. Modernization of the BBs, to me, seems to be a better value than developing and implementing a new type of Destroyer.

So we will agree to disagree and respect eachother's points of view.

Brad

 

you can say the same thing for an aircraft carrier if you have an all-out nuclear war at. what i mean by this is the term "obsolete" is situational. a ww2 BB has limited application in a modern conventional war, especially when both sides are symmetric in terms of resources and technology. but there are many instances after the vietnam war wherein a battleship can find use. i'm sticking to theoretical use, and not actual applications we've seen in the last 30 years. in an asymmetric war, i reckon a battleship will be mighty useful for a given geography.

and if complaints are all about operating costs, let's have some more numbers. the iowa is 65 years old. hasn't it paid for itself by now so that so-called operating costs/unit time won't matter so much?

 

There is only thing to remember here, economics. And not just because of the ongoing global recession. That is because the cost to reactivate and modernize a battleship of the Iowa class is about the same as that of constructing a modern guided missile frigate from scratch. And it will have only "big gun" shore bombardment capabilities over that of the frigate, like the last of those built. The USS Arkansas (CGN-41) with a complement of 473.

The BBs like the Iowas will require more men; compliment: 1,515 ship's company: 65 officers, 1,450 enlisted; 58 Marines: 2 officers, 56 enlisted; more fuel oil in the upgraded system to Navy Distillate SWLIN 26190 (not bunker #6 anymore) to move it at about the same speed (30+ knots), and deliver only shore bombardment as an advantage.

They are beautiful ships to see "running with a bone in her teeth", but not cost effective really. And probably no more a deterant to pirates, or advantage in littoral attacks over newer ships. And while they have "paid for themselves" with past service, to use them today is just silly (other than the "pride factor’). Take the "gee whiz" isn't she beautiful out of the equasion, and BBs are a waste of manpower, money, and other resources these days.

 

I have been following this debate and now that Slip has suggested that the discussion return to the original query -- what made battleships obsolete? -- I'll add my two cents.

As with just about everything we consider, the demise of the battleship was the culmination of a lot of events, most of which took place prior to WWII. WWI taught the naval powers that submarines are the most effective way of attacking enemy merchant shipping. Coming out of WWI, that became one new focus of naval philosophy, along with the notion that smaller vessels -- cruisers and destroyers -- are more effective in chasing and attacking subs.

Then in 1922, the naval powers signed a naval disarmament treaty (basically renewed in 1930, I believe) establishing the 5:5:3:1.75:1.75 ratio for naval tonnage (US/UK/Jap/France/Italy) but that treaty did not cover cruisers or destroyers. Thus the naval powers were free to build as many cruisers and destroyers as they wished.

In the US, the Naval higher ups (the "Gun Club") were battleship advocates but they were not investing in battleship technology during the period between the World Wars. They were not really investing in much of anything because of Hoover's pacifism and the two disarmament treaties in place, along with Congressional approval of the Kellogg-Briand pact. This is resulted in stagnation of the US fleet. Air proponents could not get any traction because the Gun Club thwarted the efforts of Aircraft Carrier development and the Gun Club could not push more into the development of a battlesheep fleet because of the two treaties.

Also, there had been few fleet actions during WWI or the 120 years prior to it. This is not an area about which I know very much, so I hope other Rogues will step in, but other than the Nile and Jutland, how many fleet actions actually can be counted during the period of about 1800 to 1920 (involving any combatants)?

Ultimately, air power came to be recognized as more potent, more accurate and less expensive that battleship power, but the decline of the battleship was written before WWII began.

 

Off the top of my head and limited to the age of steam
- Lissa (Italy - Austria)
- Yalu river (China - Japan)
- Yellow Sea (Russia - Japan)
- Tsushima (Russia - Japan)
- Santiago (Spain - USA)

But I think much more significant to the power of the battleship are the numerous episodes of gunboat diplomacy. Basically before effective torpedo boats (read subs) were developed the big gun ship was a mobile platform that controlled as far as her guns could bear. Big guns could not be moved easily by land so it actually also controlled any coastal area and a large part of the key cities of the period were in coastal areas especially in the minor countries.
IMO the decline for the BB started at the dardanelles where a strong French British battleship squadron failed to force the straits. The torpedo threat forced the RN to adopt a long range blockade in the North Sea, so even by the end of ww1 the capability of the BB to project power was limited. Aircraft that are even more mobile than sea borne big guns sealed the fate of the big gun ship but it really was the torpedo that initially undermined it's usefullness. BBs can still be effective for gunboat diplomacy against minor powers with no viable airforce and big guns have some advantages over aircraft in fire support situations but it's a niche that was being constantly eroded by the difficulty and cost to keep 1940 technology ships in working order, every spare part has to be custom built so the Iowa retirement was inevitable.

 

There's your smokescreen Jugs, fire your last salvo and un-a$$ the AO....

 

See post #88

 

Please don't inject emotionalism into the debate; I neither "like" nor "dislike" your opinion. I regard it as illogical and uninformed, but, as you point out, it is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to express it, just as I am entitled to point out it's flaws. Nor am I offended by your opinion, on the contrary, I find it somewhat amusing that someone in this day and age would still cling to the concepts you express.

That is obvious. But nostalgia for battleships does not trump the cold, hard facts of real warfare. I too, like battleships, but I hold no illusions about their capabilities in modern warfare, nor the costs to maintain their obsolete technologies.

So, as Slipdigit suggests, I'm prepared to let it go at that and simply agree to disagree.

 

Thanks I am glad this ended before it degenerated to making personal attacks and insults:

I mean who doesn't enjoy having their opinions referred to as Amusing, Illogical, Uninformed and Archaeic?..........I know it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.

Brad

 

Slipdigit is right guys: Is this thread going to be like this?? If yes, I'm afraid it will be closed (and sunk)

 

I'm sorry, but how else should the suggestion that sending a 45,000 ton vessel armed with 16" guns to deal with pirates in 25 foot fiberglass skiffs armed with assault rifles, is logical or appropriate, be characterized?