Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:


I dunno if I agree fully. First of all, I assume by battleship you actually MEAN battleship (and I'll lump in Aircraft Carriers as well since they are similar enough in terms of defensive ability) which as far as I know are no longer in use with any fleet in any nation on the planet. This is an important distinction to make, because aircraft are more than capable of taking down frigates, destroyers, cruisers, etc. (its regularly practiced via "sink-ex" on old decommissioned vessels). Now, in the case of these

Well... no. A carrier, even a big US fleet carrier, has a laughable defense (passive or active) compared to a battleship's potential fitting. A carrier's defense is first and foremost it's aircraft, quickly followed by running away. In the late 80s and early 90's, in US Navy wargames, battleships successfully chased down and 'killed' fleet carriers, the only ships to do so other than subs, including other carriers.

...

During extensive wargames held in 1939 to 1945, battleships failed numerous times to chase down and "kill" carrier fleets.

Assuming everyone's correct, why does 39 to 45 matter if they did fine in the 80s and 90s?

They're basically the same vessels as 39-45. Carriers on the other had have advanced considerably.

They're not that updated I guess.

 notprop wrote:
They're basically the same vessels as 39-45. Carriers on the other had have advanced considerably.

They're not that updated I guess.

Again, if they did fine last time anyone tried them (presumably after upgrades), why does 39 to 45 matter?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Railguns have a parabolic trajectory like any projectile. They can be lobbed over the horizon.

I saw an article once about the Naval Railgun project and they are saying the railgun has an effective range of 400ish miles with accuracy up to 12 meters from the target point.

I have that article someplace. It's hilarious. They never do explain how the smart projectile will use it's wings to maneuver outside the Earth's atmosphere (for those who don't know aerodynamics, that's impossible, as wings require air pressure to work) or how the projectile will accelerate to faster than it's terminal velocity on reentry without burning up or using any sort of propellant. For it to work as advertised, it's have to impact traveling a faster than it's initial muzzle velocity.

Further, the rail-gun, while it has impressive pen, inflicts relatively little damage to an object the size of a ship. Any ship.

Battleships used a combination of class A and Class B steel armor. Previously, carriers used a small amount of class B.

Seaward: on why we don't use battleships anymore: that's three fold. The first is the historic pissing contest between carrier and admiral commanders. It went to the extreme that the Iowa's number 2 turret explosion and 50 odd dead sailors can be laid at it's feet. The second is that battleships have just one use: blowing things up. When it comes to peace time humanitarian missions, they suck. This means that they cost almost as much as a carrier, but are only useful during war. So a frugal country tends to buy them over battleships. The third is that battleship building is considered right up there with a nuclear weapons program as far as diplomacy goes. A battleship has, after all, just one use.

That and the fact no battleship ever sank a US carrier, whereas aircraft... sank oodles of battleships and cruisers in the Pacific theater.
Other then that criminal British loss of a carrier (which SHOULD have resulted in the easy sinking of two German cruisers a hunderd miles or more away) not aware of another fleet carrier getting hit by shellfire. Gambier was sunk by Kurita's battle fleet but she was an escort carrier, and his force had taken heavy damage from the Taffy group and Sprague ordering everything into the air from his group a good distance away.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:




Well... no. A carrier, even a big US fleet carrier, has a laughable defense (passive or active) compared to a battleship's potential fitting. A carrier's defense is first and foremost it's aircraft, quickly followed by running away. In the late 80s and early 90's, in US Navy wargames, battleships successfully chased down and 'killed' fleet carriers, the only ships to do so other than subs, including other carriers.

Actually, a carrier has the best defense of any ship in the US Navy, its called a Carrier Battlegroup, a fleet of ships totalling some tens of billions of dollars and 10,000+ lives intended for no other purpose than to protect a ship worth half as much money and half as many lives. The aircraft, while originally intended to be a defensive system, have become primarily offensive in nature, though they do provide a certain element of defensive ability since a carrier always has a flight flying topcover. However, I'm going to need you to cite your source on those wargames, because that runs contrary to what I heard and read (keeping in mind that one of my degrees is in joint military studies, that actually means something). Likewise the idea that subs have successfully hunted a carrier is questionable as well, since nothing short of a nuclear armed torpedo could actually snap a carriers keel (its been studies) although a conventional torpedo would have the capacity to damage and possibly disable it.

Well, first of all, you put your CIWS in stand alone mode when that happens (remember that each RIM and Phalanx gun can operate independently, as well as have manual [yes really]). It's not as effective but does work. Secondly, if the CIWS on a battleship is anything like it's other fire control systems, one system begin down wouldn't even slow it down.

Again, you missed the point where I stated I didn't mean whether or not the radar, etc. was working, I meant the fact that individual CIWS units were broken, in that they would either be unable to traverse or rotate correctly, or the guns didn't cycle, or hell, the software was just flat out borked and unresponsive. The GAO even published a document a couple years back about how some 60% of the Navies surface fleet was unfit for combat operations, and this was one of the leading reasons.

ran the upgrade idea past some guys from RAAF, their (conservative) estimate was 45 planes to get a mission kill on it, without escorts, at 25% casualties, at least. Their basic plan was to harass it with smaller ASMs to try and swamp it with targets and keep it painted until they could drop several MOABs on it. They figured that would inflict sufficient damage to force it to withdraw.

The RAAF's available arsenal of aircraft and missile systems isn't exactly known to be "cutting edge".

And, no, I'm not underestimating ASM's power, but I do understand how they work and how a battleship works. Modern ASM work by detonating a small warhead charge against the hull of the ship, in theory allowing the missile access to the ship so that a larger explosive charge and the missiles remaining fuel can then be detonated internally, causing that firey mess you were talking about.

Some but not all... some of the ASM's out there are actually designed to pop up and come down directly from above, as (traditionally) the weakest part of a ships armor is its deck.

This approach does not work on US battleships due to the fact that to pass through the Panama canal, they use internal armor belts. This means that the missile's penetrating warhead explodes on the ships steel skin, but the secondary charge is then blocked from entering by a 17 inch thick or greater Class A armor. (think armor skirts).

I was under the impression that the internal armor belts on the US last Iowa's were removed not long before they were retired to reduce wait, but maybe I'm wrong on that one.

This is the Wilson cloud from atomic test Baker. Several of the battleships present within 'ground zero' remained afloat, the though the USS Arkansas was flipped end over end by the bomb and sank, she's still largely intact on the seabed. USS Pennsylvania took on water but remained afloat, due to the nuke loosening a patch on a torpedo hit she had suffered earlier.

Yes, the ships largely stayed afloat, but what you aren't accounting for is that the steam generated by the cloud, let alone the radiation, was such that it would have instantly cooked the crews of every ship in the area. Besides that a lot of the ships that didn't sink were heavily damaged and SINKING. Prinz Eugen for example sunk 5 months later, because the ship was so heavily irradiated that they couldn't decontaminate it so that they could repair leaks in the hull. Some of the other ships were pre-emptively beached before they could sink, and in all I believe only a handful of ships were actually decontaminated the rest either eventually sank on their own or were sunk because nothing could be done about the radioactive hull. Its also worth noting it was a relatively small nuclear devices, a bit larger than the ones we dropped on Japan, which are only a fraction of the size of the nuclear devices used today... it was also detonated 90 feet below the surface in shallow (180 ft depth) water, which has a big impact on the damage caused.

I'd imagine that a carrier, being bigger and requiring greater internal space for aircraft than a battleship would need, would need more armour compared to its size. With increased size comes increased weight, which slows the ship down. Similarly, if the carrier has to carry fuel and weapons for the aircraft while the Railgun ammunition for the battleship is all solid, the battleship won't turn into a giant torch the moment someone manages to hit the ammunition stores.

Regarding the armour, according to Wikipedia the USS George H W Bush has 2.5" Kevlar armour over vital spaces. The USS Missouri has 9.5" of deck armour and a hull armour around 11-12", with the turrets boasting 17". Wiki doesn't say what material, but I'd assume it to be steel. The Nimitz class is a 100,000 ton monster with almost no armour; adding 12" of armour would probably weigh quite a bit.

In a lot of cases, the 2.5" of kevlar is a more effective protection than a thicker plate of steel. Likewise, a 5" naval gun today has more penetrative power than a 16" Armor Piercing round from back in the day. I studied it in my naval weapons systems class but I can't recall off the top of my head what the relative capabilities are.

I have that article someplace. It's hilarious. They never do explain how the smart projectile will use it's wings to maneuver outside the Earth's atmosphere (for those who don't know aerodynamics, that's impossible, as wings require air pressure to work) or how the projectile will accelerate to faster than it's terminal velocity on reentry without burning up or using any sort of propellant. For it to work as advertised, it's have to impact traveling a faster than it's initial muzzle velocity.

The round would never actually leave thee atmosphere. I don't know what would ever give you the idea that it would, nor would it re-enter. Parabolic doesn't mean shot up near vertically to plunge back down near vertically. A parabolic curve can have a relatively shallow curve... I assure you the math works out...

Further, the rail-gun, while it has impressive pen, inflicts relatively little damage to an object the size of a ship. Any ship.

False. The kinetic energy transfer from slug to target is actually pretty tremendoes. K=.5mv^2. Mass might be small, but the V is tremendous.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 notprop wrote:
They're basically the same vessels as 39-45. Carriers on the other had have advanced considerably.

They're not that updated I guess.

Again, if they did fine last time anyone tried them (presumably after upgrades), why does 39 to 45 matter?

My point is that carriers of 39-45 were vastly weaker than carriers of 1980-1990, due to numerous improvements in electronics and aircraft over 40 years. Battleships however had not progressed to anything like the same degree.

Why then should we believe some wargames over real world experience?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 notprop wrote:
They're basically the same vessels as 39-45. Carriers on the other had have advanced considerably.

They're not that updated I guess.

Again, if they did fine last time anyone tried them (presumably after upgrades), why does 39 to 45 matter?

My point is that carriers of 39-45 were vastly weaker than carriers of 1980-1990, due to numerous improvements in electronics and aircraft over 40 years. Battleships however had not progressed to anything like the same degree.

Why then should we believe some wargames over real world experience?

Well last time battleships were at sea, they were upgraded with significant anti-air and anti-missile defenses in addition to their considerable existing armour that most modern anti-ship missiles are just not equipped to deal with. On the offensive side they were equipped with long ranged cruise missiles (which have an anti-ship capability) and nuclear weapons. So no, the battleship has not remained static since 1945.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

During extensive wargames held in 1939 to 1945, battleships failed numerous times to chase down and "kill" carrier fleets.

And carrier fleets failed numerous times to catch and kill battleships too. The problem with comparing WW2 to now is there is no comparison. Performance even in battleships was upgraded significantly in the 1990's refits.

notprop wrote:They're basically the same vessels as 39-45. Carriers on the other had have advanced considerably.

They're not that updated I guess.

Yes and no. While they're the same hulls used in 1944-45, the Iowa class fast battleship isn't called that for no reason. The engine systems were upgraded with much of the rest of the ships in the late 80's early 90's, however, they were originally 8 babcocks and willcox non explosive boilers which had comparable output to a Nimitz class carrier.

Frazzled wrote:
That and the fact no battleship ever sank a US carrier, whereas aircraft... sank oodles of battleships and cruisers in the Pacific theater.
Other then that criminal British loss of a carrier (which SHOULD have resulted in the easy sinking of two German cruisers a hunderd miles or more away) not aware of another fleet carrier getting hit by shellfire. Gambier was sunk by Kurita's battle fleet but she was an escort carrier, and his force had taken heavy damage from the Taffy group and Sprague ordering everything into the air from his group a good distance away.

Gambier Bay and St Lo were both lost in the same action, though St Lo's killing blow was a kamikazi, she and several other members of the group were badly crippled as they fled. Their escorts were pretty much annihilated as well.

And as far as carriers sinking battleships etc this is true, but this was entirely due to the use of torpedo bombers (something no longer in use). Very few battleships were sunk by bomb hits outside Pearl Harbor.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Actually, a carrier has the best defense of any ship in the US Navy, its called a Carrier Battlegroup, a fleet of ships totalling some tens of billions of dollars and 10,000+ lives intended for no other purpose than to protect a ship worth half as much money and half as many lives. The aircraft, while originally intended to be a defensive system, have become primarily offensive in nature, though they do provide a certain element of defensive ability since a carrier always has a flight flying topcover. However, I'm going to need you to cite your source on those wargames, because that runs contrary to what I heard and read (keeping in mind that one of my degrees is in joint military studies, that actually means something). Likewise the idea that subs have successfully hunted a carrier is questionable as well, since nothing short of a nuclear armed torpedo could actually snap a carriers keel (its been studies) although a conventional torpedo would have the capacity to damage and possibly disable it.

I'll have to dig it out. I'll admit that I heard about it secondhand from some former crewmen of the New Jersey, but I also vaguely recall reading in the GAO battleship feasibility study mention of it. Remember on the torps that mission kill does not equate sink. (And you don't have to break a ships keel to sink it with torps. A good spread flooding enough compartments will do it just fine)

chaos0xomega wrote:
Again, you missed the point where I stated I didn't mean whether or not the radar, etc. was working, I meant the fact that individual CIWS units were broken, in that they would either be unable to traverse or rotate correctly, or the guns didn't cycle, or hell, the software was just flat out borked and unresponsive. The GAO even published a document a couple years back about how some 60% of the Navies surface fleet was unfit for combat operations, and this was one of the leading reasons.

Well, yes, if the weapons systems are not working at all, that's a serious problem, but hardly one unique to battleships. However, with even just passive resistance from armor a battleship is better equipped to survive a hit than a carrier is.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The RAAF's available arsenal of aircraft and missile systems isn't exactly known to be "cutting edge".

True, but they also have better training at eliminating warships than the US does. I'll take the word of pilots who have actually fired on ships, even target ships, over yours. Though if you like I can show you the target ships from RIMPAC and the actual damage that US munitions do. It's underwhelming.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Some but not all... some of the ASM's out there are actually designed to pop up and come down directly from above, as (traditionally) the weakest part of a ships armor is its deck.

Yes, sea skimmers. This is true, however, again, against a battleship, it's sub optimal. One 'weakest' is relative. The deck armor is a 'mere' 7 inches thick, or more than twice that of a carriers hull. And, again, the armor is covered by the bomb deck, with wood planks, so, again, premature detonation. Two the same deck includes the battleships turrets and the armored conning tower, which are actually the most heavily armored part of the ship.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I was under the impression that the internal armor belts on the US last Iowa's were removed not long before they were retired to reduce wait, but maybe I'm wrong on that one.

No, Iowa's belts are very firmly in place. She actually displaces more now than she did in WW2. (And how the HELL would you remove those without cutting the ship up for scrap?)

chaos0xomega wrote:
Yes, the ships largely stayed afloat, but what you aren't accounting for is that the steam generated by the cloud, let alone the radiation, was such that it would have instantly cooked the crews of every ship in the area.

The steam bit is a misconception. While many exposed animals in the test suffered flash burns, the majority of them that died were actually killed by radiation poisoning. The only battleship that suffered immediate internal issues (IIRC) with rad levels inside the ship was Nevada, because it had an antiquated at the time ventilation system that dumped radioactive dust all through the ship. I have the declassified post shot reports for USS Pennsylvania and USS Nevada, though I'd have to find them.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Besides that a lot of the ships that didn't sink were heavily damaged and SINKING. Prinz Eugen for example sunk 5 months later, because the ship was so heavily irradiated that they couldn't decontaminate it so that they could repair leaks in the hull. Some of the other ships were pre-emptively beached before they could sink, and in all I believe only a handful of ships were actually decontaminated the rest either eventually sank on their own or were sunk because nothing could be done about the radioactive hull. Its also worth noting it was a relatively small nuclear devices, a bit larger than the ones we dropped on Japan, which are only a fraction of the size of the nuclear devices used today... it was also detonated 90 feet below the surface in shallow (180 ft depth) water, which has a big impact on the damage caused.

Yes, it caused much greater damage than a modern airburst would (an airburst which had already been tested and did very minor damage). That said: Actually the problem was with the decontamination procedure. They basically pumped the already radioactive water from the lagoon and sprayed it over the ships. This flooded even parts of the ships that were not radioactive with radioactive materials. Effectively it took was was largely minor surface contamination and made it fifty times worse. The few ships that were salvagable were hte ones that they did not treat in this manner or were far enough from ground zero that the water being pumped over them was (relatively) clean.

chaos0xomega wrote:
In a lot of cases, the 2.5" of kevlar is a more effective protection than a thicker plate of steel. Likewise, a 5" naval gun today has more penetrative power than a 16" Armor Piercing round from back in the day. I studied it in my naval weapons systems class but I can't recall off the top of my head what the relative capabilities are.

A 16"/50 mark 7 can pen 30 feet of concrete. A modern 5"/54 Mark 45 Mod 4 actually does about half that.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The round would never actually leave thee atmosphere. I don't know what would ever give you the idea that it would, nor would it re-enter. Parabolic doesn't mean shot up near vertically to plunge back down near vertically. A parabolic curve can have a relatively shallow curve... I assure you the math works out...

Notice the part where it's leaving the detectable atmosphere. At 500k feet this smart guided round isn't going to have anything to use to turn because it's into the exosphere.

I'm aware that a parabolic curve can have a very low angle. The problem is once a railgun munition starts dropping it's losing energy rather rapidly due to it's relatively low mass fighting wind resistance and gravity. Remember that while V is important, it's the inertia of m that actually keeps a slug going.

chaos0xomega wrote:
False. The kinetic energy transfer from slug to target is actually pretty tremendous. K=.5mv^2. Mass might be small, but the V is tremendous.

Except it doesn't. You're forgetting that at that V it's going to over penetrate and only a fraction of K will be imparted on a target.

Bringing back the Battleship (in a nutshell)

Pros

-Guns with a range over the horizon that are big and nasty enough to sink just about anything else afloat.
-The ability to engage in direct heavy artillery support at a level beyond most ground units, and more sustained than air or missile strikes.
-Thick armour able to ward off strikes from all but dedicated weaponry.

Cons

-Susceptibility to repeat aerial attacks in an age dominated by air power.
-Heavy vulnerability to submarines.
-Vast cost of construction and maintenance.

 Ketara wrote:
Bringing back the Battleship (in a nutshell)

Pros

-Guns with a range over the horizon that are big and nasty enough to sink just about anything else afloat.
-The ability to engage in direct heavy artillery support at a level beyond most ground units, and more sustained than air or missile strikes.
-Thick armour able to ward off strikes from all but dedicated weaponry.

Cons

-Susceptibility to repeat aerial attacks in an age dominated by air power.
-Heavy vulnerability to submarines.
-Vast cost of construction and maintenance.

The vulnerability to submarines bit is arguable. As with carriers, it depends on it's group.

Pros: Cheaper than comparable ships for NGS.

Cons: Large crew. (Though depending on who you talk to this could be a pro or a con. There's a growing sentiment among surface commanders that 'optimal crewing' is leaving ships short handed in the event of emergency.)

In regards to the capability of the Izumo class to operate conventional aircraft:

The smallest carrier I know of that can operate conventional aircraft is the Kunzetsnov class. It can operate converted Su-27 fighters, which are as large if not larger than any fighter in the Japanese Air Self Defense Forces. So a craft that can operate the navalized Su-27 could reasonably expect to operate a navalized version of any current or projected future JASDF aircraft.

Here is the tale of the tape:

Displacement: Kuznetsov: 43,000 to 67,500 tonnes Izumo: 19,500 to 27,000 tonnes. So the Kuznetsov is about twice as heavy

Length: Kuznetsov: 305 m Izumo: 248.0 m So the Kuznetsov is about 20% longer, it also has a Ski-Jump bow.

Beam (width for you landlubber): Kuznetsov: 72 m Izumo: 38.0 m So the Kuznetsov is about twice as wide. This includes an angled flight tech which is essential to a carrier wanting to conduct simultaneous take off and landing operations.

So to operate conventional fighters, the Izumo would need to be considerably larger than it currently is and sport a number of significant modifications to it's structure. The modifications are extensive enough, and the capabilities of the Izumo as a carrier are limited enough (only about a dozen aircraft) that it would probably be more worthwhile to build a completely new carrier from scratch.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

The vulnerability to submarines bit is arguable. As with carriers, it depends on it's group.

Note that I'm talking about the Battleship specifically. Not a battleship and eight attendant vessels, Otherwise it would be the pros and cons of a Fleet Group that happens to involve a battleship, and would be taking into account the pros and cons of destroyers, frigates, carriers, and so on as well.

Part of the reason why we don't use battleships anymore is because the US military has this habit of a few generals getting it into their heads that a single weapons system is all they need to win a war and they build that exclusively and attempt to get all other systems disbanded Eg, the "Fighter mafia" of the 1970s and the earlier "bomber mafia".

With regards to this ship I agree that its not likely to be an actual aircraft launching platform but it does have uses in supporting small scale operations elsewhere.

 EmilCrane wrote:
Part of the reason why we don't use battleships anymore is because the US military has this habit of a few generals getting it into their heads that a single weapons system is all they need to win a war and they build that exclusively and attempt to get all other systems disbanded Eg, the "Fighter mafia" of the 1970s and the earlier "bomber mafia".

I would say it has more to do with them being used exclusively as ship-to-shore artillery since the end of World War II, and it being a little much to keep funding them solely for that function.

Our destroyers and frigates today would also have little issue dealing with other surface warfare ships out there,unlike in WW2.

 djones520 wrote:
Our destroyers and frigates today would also have little issue dealing with other surface warfare ships out there,unlike in WW2.

Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates have no defense against surface ships besides a 76mm gun, while destroyers have a better chance with anti-ship missiles you have to take itno account that battleships are going to be firing missiles right back, and have much better armor

The Oliver Perry class is pretty much phasing out, and today only makes up a small portion of our fleet. The Arleigh Burke is our primary surface combatant, and probably the best fighting ship to ever sail the seas.

 djones520 wrote:
Our destroyers and frigates today would also have little issue dealing with other surface warfare ships out there,unlike in WW2.

That's overselling the VLS and the 5" gun just a bit. Remember that the USN currently is very much NOT able to conduct close range firefights (compared to previous incarnations), and that several navies around the world specialize in exactly that. In a blue water fight USN would clean up most fleets, but in the littoral zone the USN would struggle in the face of serious opposition, Further, the USN does not have staying power in the face of a prolonged action. If it's not over in two hours, they're screwed, because that's about the max engagement length currently sustainable.

The Burke is a good ship, but calling it the best ever is a stretch.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Our destroyers and frigates today would also have little issue dealing with other surface warfare ships out there,unlike in WW2.

That's overselling the VLS and the 5" gun just a bit. Remember that the USN currently is very much NOT able to conduct close range firefights (compared to previous incarnations), and that several navies around the world specialize in exactly that. In a blue water fight USN would clean up most fleets, but in the littoral zone the USN would struggle in the face of serious opposition, Further, the USN does not have staying power in the face of a prolonged action. If it's not over in two hours, they're screwed, because that's about the max engagement length currently sustainable.

The Burke is a good ship, but calling it the best ever is a stretch.

We fight with air power at sea. We're good everywhere.

And carrier fleets failed numerous times to catch and kill battleships too. The problem with comparing WW2 to now is there is no comparison. Performance even in battleships was upgraded significantly in the 1990's refits.

What planet are you living on, because its not Earth. Here's a short list of battleships and that were given the face plant by aircraft

The following 22 pages are in this category, out of 22 total. This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).

AUSS Arizona (BB-39)
CUSS California (BB-44)
Italian battleship Conte di Cavour
HJapanese battleship Haruna
Japanese battleship Hiei
Japanese battleship Hyūga
IItalian battleship Impero
Japanese battleship Ise
JFrench battleship Jean Bart (1911)
KGreek battleship Kilkis
LGreek battleship Lemnos
MJapanese battleship Musashi
OUSS Oklahoma (BB-37)
SMS Ostfriesland
PRussian battleship Petropavlovsk (1911)
HMS Prince of Wales (53)
RItalian battleship Roma (1940)
SFrench battleship Strasbourg
TGerman battleship Tirpitz
UUSS Utah (BB-31)
WUSS West Virginia (BB-48)
YJapanese battleship Yamato

HMS Prince of Wales was sunk at sea by land based aircraft.

The Jean Bart was bombed in harbour.

Doesn't matter where they were bombed. Aircraft still killed 'em.

 Frazzled wrote:
Doesn't matter where they were bombed. Aircraft still killed 'em.

There's a number of mitigating circumstances with that list, most of them were bombed in harbor, not moving and in some cases not even firing back, also the two greek battleships aren't battleships.

Prince of wales didn't have its own aerial cover and never should have been sent to malayan waters without it, as in all things to do with warfare combined arms is a better approach than relying on one type of weapon exclusively

 Frazzled wrote:
Doesn't matter where they were bombed. Aircraft still killed 'em.

Aye, there's no getting away from the fact that it's far easier to get carrier launched planes into a position to kill a battleship than it is to get a BB in range to sink a carrier.

 EmilCrane wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Doesn't matter where they were bombed. Aircraft still killed 'em.

There's a number of mitigating circumstances with that list, most of them were bombed in harbor, not moving and in some cases not even firing back, also the two greek battleships aren't battleships.

Prince of wales didn't have its own aerial cover and never should have been sent to malayan waters without it, as in all things to do with warfare combined arms is a better approach than relying on one type of weapon exclusively

You can babble babble all you want but its still aircraft 20: battleship: 1

Now a battleship which is essentially a very powerful missile cruiser is nice, agreed. But how many cruise missiles can a flight from the Nimitz launch in comparison?

I thought the question was of Aircraft carriers running down battleships?

If that's the case then the circumstances are pertinent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Tirpitz was taken out by high altitude bombers flown from Britain with specially designed payloads (after being damaged by midget subs iirc).

So again not relevant to an AC vs BS comparison.

 notprop wrote:
I thought the question was of Aircraft carriers running down battleships?

If that's the case then the circumstances are pertinent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Tirpitz was taken out by high altitude bombers flown from Britain with specially designed payloads (after being damaged by midget subs iirc).

So again not relevant to an AC vs BS comparison.

Sure it is. Carriers launch aircraft. Aircraft kill ships.
Land based aircraft can also kill ships.

Moral of the story, aircraft kill ships.

Again, how many air craft carriers were sunk by battleships in return? Yea thats what I thought you said.

Interesting side note. When the Brits bombed the Tirpitz, RN fighters flying CAP for the bombers were flying Vought F4U corsairs.
The Vought Corsair, the only man made thing close to the greatness of wiener dogs.

 Frazzled wrote:

What planet are you living on, because its not Earth. Here's a short list of battleships and that were given the face plant by aircraft

Out of how many attempts? Tirpitz they made four or five goes at before they finally succeeded. and was killed by land based bombers while sitting, not carriers while out maneuvering.


USS Arizona (BB-39) [Sunk at anchor in a surprise attack]
USS California (BB-44) [Sunk at anchor in a surprise attack]
Italian battleship Conte di Cavour [Obsolete WW1 battleship, torpedoed]
Japanese battleship Haruna [Sunk at anchor while undergoing repairs following running around]
Japanese battleship Hiei [crippled by shell fire from USS San Francisco, aircraft attacks throughout the day failed to yield any serious damage but ship could not be towed to safety and was scuttled by her escorting destroyers]
Japanese battleship Hyūga [was not sunk by aircraft, was scuttled in shallow water by her crew]
Italian battleship Impero [Impero was only 28%^ complete when Italy capitulated. When captured, the hulk was already half sunk through use as a target ship. She was struck though by aircraft during a bombing raid, but this was not the cause of her sinking]
Japanese battleship Ise [gutted and designated a floating anti-aircraft battery, Ise was in fact sunk on the third try by USN aircraft]
French battleship Jean Bart (1911) [Obsolete pre WW1 battleship, not only as was pointed out, bombed in harbor, but also had been used as a target ship by the Germans and was barely seaworthy.]
Greek battleship Kilkis [Former USS Mississippi, she was a pre WW1 battleship deemed obsolete by the Greek Navy that had been disarmed and used for training before a rather rudimentry effort was made to make her a flaoting AA battery. Manned by naval cadets, she did not managed to avoid Ju 88 bombers.].
Greek battleship Lemnos [former USS Idaho, an obsolete pre WW1 battleship, she had been disarmed and used as a floating barrak for the Greek naval academy, which also had use of Kilkis.]
Japanese battleship Musashi [19 torpedo and 17 bomb hits to cause sufficient flooding to overwhelm Japanese DCTs and cause the Japanese to give the order to abandon ship.]
USS Oklahoma (BB-37) [Sunk at anchor in a surprise attack]
SMS Ostfriesland [Unmanned target ship, no attempt at damage control made]
Russian battleship Petropavlovsk (1911) [obsolete pre-WW1 battleship sunk at anchor]]
HMS Prince of Wales [amazingly lucky shot with torpedo caused propeller shaft to damage engine rooms and flood ship]
Italian battleship Roma (1940) [Again, one in a million shot with a Fritz X managed to disable all firefighting gear on ship, all electric on ship, ships engines, AND setting fires from end to end and detonating a magazine, in that order. Ship had made no effort at defense having mistaken the aircraft for friendlies]
French battleship Strasbourg [scuttled wreck that had been re-floated and towed to port before being bombed by allied aircraft and re-sunk]
German battleship Tirpitz [Took an absurd amount of effort in terms of aircraft and munitions to kill her while she sat at anchor, including direct hits from 2k pound tallboys with no result. Hydrostatic shock finally caused enough leaks to cause her to flood and capsize, after six months of air attacks.]
USS Utah (BB-31) [Sunk at anchor in a surprise attack]
USS West Virginia (BB-48) [Sunk at anchor in a surprise attack]
Japanese battleship Yamato [Capsized due to torpedo hits, as without air cover and having lost too many escorts due to either mechanical failure on the way or enemy fire, there really wasn't anything to stop the Torp bombers from lining up their targets. Most of the hits above the surface did largely cosmetic damage to Yamato. Interesting note on this: this battle was a case of the pissing contest between carrier and battleship admirals. It was not carriers who had orders to engage Yamato, but rather Taskforce 57, a large body of battleships who had these orders. However, the carrier commander of Taskforce 58, without orders, launched his own attack, and then told his CO about it after it was already on the way. Spruance was not convinced that 7 carriers would be enough [and it wouldn't have been if the Japanese ships had sufficient AA or air cover] and so had six battleships, 7 cruisers and 21 destroyers on hand to make sure of it.]

 Frazzled wrote:

Moral of the story, aircraft kill ships.

Actually, the moral of the story is torpedoes kill ships. Though occasionally specialist munitions dropped from aircraft against unmoving targets do so too.

The one advantage I will give to the battleship is that it doesnt use missiles. Guns, besides being considerably cheaper than missiles to purchase, operate, reload, and maintain, also have a much much larger ammunition capacity than vls cells. You know what an Arleigh Burke thats fired off all its missiles is? A target.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

What planet are you living on, because its not Earth. Here's a short list of battleships and that were given the face plant by aircraft

Out of how many attempts? Tirpitz they made four or five goes at before they finally succeeded. and was killed by land based bombers while sitting, not carriers while out maneuvering.

(shortened)

Again, how many carriers were sunk by battleships?
silence...crickets chirping...in the distance a wiener dog yawns.