NationStates Jolt Archive

There seems to be a lot of opposition to using battleships in nation's navies, so here is a short little article discussing some of the main arguments that I have heard people used.

Battleships need escorts

It is true the battleships have no anti-submarine capabilities and almost no anti-air weapons. However, when responding to most events and providing sea control, escorts aren't needed. In large naval engagements, of course escorts are needed, but that can be said for any class of ships, not just battleships. The only real threat to an unescorted battleship are commandos in small boats.

Battleships aren't very survivable

After the Cold War, many Soviet Admirals confessed they were terrified of Americna battleships because they realized that massed cruise missile attacks couldn't stop them. The French Exocet missile, one of the most prominent antiship missiles around today, can penetrate up to ~3inches of steel. An Iowa-class battleship has steel from ~6-~17 inches thick, compared to a quarter inch on most modern cruisers an destroyers. A 16-inch gun has a maximum elevation of 45 degrees, and can be used to hit ascending or descending missiles. The only real issue is that it would need Aegis radar or a data link to a ship with Aegis radar.

Japanese kamikazes during World War II sank dozens of surface ships. The raw power of a kamikaze is roughly equal to a cruise missile (not exactly, but pretty close). The battleship USS Missouri was hit by a kamikaze on the side below the main deck at Okinawa. Minor damage and no casualties.

Battleships are vulnerable to mines

During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the biggest threat to US Naval ships was mines, mostly due to their reluctance to devote resources to deal with the problem. Even with the threat of mines, battleships in that engagement fired over 1100 shells, while not a single shell was fired from expensive modern cruisers and destroyers. The battleships unmatched shore bombardment support is vital, and cannot be fulfilled by cruisers and destroyers. In addition, the accuracy problems of battleships were caused by their use of very old reblended powders. New 16-inch powder bags would be extremely accurate, and the options for pneumatic fired or liquid propellants offer even greater advantages in range, accuracy, and safety. The Navy has to remove mines before any ships attack a port, anyway.

Battleships are expensive

A battleship costs less then an aircraft carrier, both to build and maintain. A carrier requires billions of dollars for new aircraft every few years, and expensive aircraft parts, constant aircraft upgrades, and replacements for crashes. Industry reps even have cabins onboard carriers and deploy overseas. There are dozens of aircraft lobbyists tossing millions of dollars into the pockets of Congressmen, but no "battleship" lobbyists. Aircraft carriers are more powerful and flexible than battleships, but they cost four times more to operate and can't fill the battleships fire support niche. Any sane person who reads about this issue will discover that a US Navy with 11 carriers and 4 battleships could provide far more land attack power than 12 carriers, and would require less manpower. Even modern fleet flagships, which have NO combat capability whatsoever, cost more then a battleship to build and maintain.

Many people dispute the need for Navy ships to operate close to shore. When the airpower gods announce that all shore based threats have been destroyed and it is safe for the minesweepers, landing craft, and even cargo ships to go forth, who will lead them into harm's way? A professional enemy will manage to hide most of his shore batteries and small boats from airpower waiting for targets to appear. A battleship is an inviting target which can see these threats as they open fire and return fire immediately. A billion dollar Aegis destroyer is likely to sink after one shore round penetrates and sets off its large stock of missiles.

Bump

Eh... pretty good. Except that the Exocet, as well as the Harpoon, were designed for a world that doesnt have armoured ships. Well one that doesnt have armoured ships on the other guy's side... it's by no means impossible to make a decent AP missile. I would also dispute your assertion that you can engage a missile with a 16" gun... still, this does make a lot of sense. If you have the money then it's nice to add a battleship onto your fleets.

And let's face it folks, a battleship looks a lot cooler leading a fleet then a blocky carrier.

Except that the Exocet, as well as the Harpoon, were designed for a world that doesnt have armoured ships. Well one that doesnt have armoured ships on the other guy's side... it's by no means impossible to make a decent AP missile.

Granted, but most navies (in RL and on NS) use Exocets, Harpoons, or similar weapons. I have rarely seen people use more advanced missiles. My point is that without specifically designed anti-battleship missiles, they can withstand a missile attack.

I would also dispute your assertion that you can engage a missile with a 16" gun

That matter is particularly open to debate, yeah.

And a bump

A lot of this is covered by Clan Smoke Jaguar in his thread about naval ships. A couple of facts from that thread: The Iowa-class battleship can accomodate 1,000 more people than its crew complement. Also, that class is the only combat ship that can refuel other ships.

Aircraft carriers and destroyers can be shot at and the missiles and such can be shot down. Against a battleship, the only defense against a flying shell is to get out of its way and hide until it stops flying.

Well, although the Exocet and Harpoon are commonly used in the NS world, they are still quite frankly, outdated when it comes to large-scale NS naval combat (though I usually exclude the newer "Harpoon II" in RL from the outdated standards). Perhaps supersonic missiles could do more damage, but then they have the range problem and would also often have a smaller warhead if its overall weight is still similar to their subsonic counterparts.

About shells however, while I am aware that some nations here have deployed weapons (especially laser-based weapons) against shells, the negative side is still that in many cases they simply lack the range in a long-range naval engagement, and that heavier shells with a bigger calibre often features inferior accuracy when compared to the smaller ones.

I never got around to finishing CSJ's thread, it was just too long. It's posted on the OMP, enit?

I never got around to finishing CSJ's thread, it was just too long. It's posted on the OMP, enit?Yep.

Another Battleship thread to check out:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=311331

While I do agree with some of this, there are actually a few points to make.

A: While the striking power of a battleship is not denied, there is the fact that the shells are unguided. While such a bombardment is an awesome capability, there is a limit to the range, as well as the accuracy. Yes, I know you can say the same about aircraft...

B: About the costs and personnel, an aircraft carrier has far more diversity than a battleship, which generally has only one, maybe two specific missions in life (shore bombardment and anti ship and if we push it, convoy escort). However, an aircraft carrier can perform strike escort, close air support, aerial refueling, airborne early warning, electronic warfare, close strike, reconnaisance etc.

The main reason they retired the battleships were that they had basically one job (surface warfare by then was an iffy issue, even at the peak of the Cold War), which was surface bombardment. They needed something like two thousand crew, just for this one mission.

And... Sarzonia, your comment regarding Also, that class is the only combat ship that can refuel other ships, referring to the Iowa, not true. There are a lot of pictures around of aircraft carriers refuelling their destroyer escorts. The conventional carriers, that is.

While I do agree with some of this, there are actually a few points to make.

A: While the striking power of a battleship is not denied, there is the fact that the shells are unguided. While such a bombardment is an awesome capability, there is a limit to the range, as well as the accuracy. Yes, I know you can say the same about aircraft...

B: About the costs and personnel, an aircraft carrier has far more diversity than a battleship, which generally has only one, maybe two specific missions in life (shore bombardment and anti ship and if we push it, convoy escort). However, an aircraft carrier can perform strike escort, close air support, aerial refueling, airborne early warning, electronic warfare, close strike, reconnaisance etc.

The main reason they retired the battleships were that they had basically one job (surface warfare by then was an iffy issue, even at the peak of the Cold War), which was surface bombardment. They needed something like two thousand crew, just for this one mission.

And... Sarzonia, your comment regarding Also, that class is the only combat ship that can refuel other ships, referring to the Iowa, not true. There are a lot of pictures around of aircraft carriers refuelling their destroyer escorts. The conventional carriers, that is.
I concur with the majority of this post. I'd also like to add that battleships were phased out for a number of reasons:

1) most fleet actions occurred at longer ranges than a battleship's guns could reach;
2) battleships were vulnerable to enemy air action unless protected by carriers (though by the end of WW2 battleships were providing air defence to the carriers with a hefty assortment of 5" DP guns, 40mm pom-poms, etc.);
3) battleships, even with automation, are very crew-intensive. With all the wonderful "it saves manpower" devices you add to the beastie, you add technical complexity, which means technicians, which means a lot of pounds, shillings, and pence as well as headaches and ulcers. The same can be said of carriers, except that the complex devices are aircraft which can be more easily replaced than a battleship;
4) with heavy armour comes a heavy price, especially if you constantly have to research developing new forms of armour to counter enemy attacks. In the real world -- nowhere near NS country -- titanium would be in short supply and you couldn't move for all the battleships, which is why I've stuck with steel alloys and monohulls (That's not to say my ships are any more realistic than anyone else's; just different). And those big guns don't come cheaply, either. Those need to be replaced after every 300 firings or so, depending on the charges used, the propellant, the shells fired, etc. The bigger the shell, the more wear problems accrue.

[more later...]

In the first post, it was stated that the battleship has no anti-sub or -air. This is untrue as the Iowa Class carried a score or so 20mm AA, as well as 40mm AA. They can also be outfitted with torpedoes, like the Bismark Class. Throw in the Phalanx CIWS, and cruise missiles are toast. My entire NS navy is based around an upgraded class of battleships where all of the flaws of perevious classes, including guided shells, has been perfected.

And in close combat, carriers can't defend themselves worth beans.

In the first post, it was stated that the battleship has no anti-sub or -air. This is untrue as the Iowa Class carried a score or so 20mm AA, as well as 40mm AA.

The speed of jet aircraft made this obsolete. When the Essex class carriers were built, they had dozens of 5 inch guns. When the Forrestals were built (the first modern supercarrier designed specifically for jets), they too had 5 inch guns, but it was found they were too slow to shoot down an attacking aircraft and were removed when they went in for major refits.

While I do acknowledge that modern naval guns have an anti air capability, the missile is definitely the preferred option. And, to my knowledge, the smallest naval gun capable of anti air capability is at least 100 mm (about three inches).

They can also be outfitted with torpedoes, like the Bismark Class.

Battleships are too long, too unmaneuverable and too comparatively slow, as are the torpedoes. In modern warfare, a submarine would not be right next to the target when it launches, it would be miles away. That's why ASW (Anti Submarine Warfare) is often done with aircraft and helicopters, to try and get the submarines far out to sea before they can launch. And with the power of their main guns, torpedoes are a redundancy for attacking ships.

I come from a naval family. Though true, the guns may be slow, you can configure the ship for SAM capabilities, costly but possible.

Battleships can carry the necessary helicopters for ASW, though torpedoes these days are becoming fast enough. They're working on jet propelled torpedoes, and I hear they're making progress.