The Great Naval Gunfire Support debate

[rathi]

Mission kill v sinking. Any and every ship is vulnerable to mission kill. The Iowa-class is less so because their main armament can be used effectively w/o radar.

The Iowa's main armament is useless for anything but shore-bombardment, and for a similar cost in sailors and dollars you can get multiple destroyers which are much harder to mission kill. The modernized battleship is quite powerful, but simply not worth the cost.

This presumes you have the assets to attack the ship and can get those assets in position, and can get past the screen. That the ship retains her manuverability lessens this considerably.
And again, the ship is designed to take numerous hits from these weapons and not just survive but continue to fight - remember that the Muashi took 19 bombs/17 torpedoes before sinking, the Yamato 11 torpedoes and 8 bumbs, the Bismark took 80 14" and 16" AP shells. The Iowa class is at least as survivalble as these ships and probably more, given their more modern design. A modern cruiser may be disabled by 2-3 2000lb bombs' a battleship will shrug these off with ease.

The point is that losing the ability to strike back is pretty much the same thing as being sunk from a tactical point of view. If your enemy can attack with impunity, delivering 13 bombs instead of 2 is little more than sending out another sortie. A ship without functioning radar faces threats that it cannot defend against, cannot hide from and cannot run from.

 

[Goobieman]

The Iowa's main armament is useless for anything but shore-bombardment...

Not so. They're also useful for surface actions. And, of course, her missile battery dosnt require local fire control.

and for a similar cost in sailors and dollars you can get multiple destroyers which are much harder to mission kill.

How so? The modernization of the ships cost less than a Perry-class FFG each and it takes less to mission-kill a DDG for no other reason that the smaller size of the ship requires that the vunerable equipment be in cloeer proximity.
\

The modernized battleship is quite powerful, but simply not worth the cost.

There's only one ship more powerful - the carrier. As far a surface combatants go, there's no equal.

The point is that losing the ability to strike back is pretty much the same thing as being sunk from a tactical point of view.

Yes -- this has been discussed. The point was that the ships were designed to take considerable damage and continue to fight back. That's unique among modern warships. Even without the radars the ships can still fight as their guns have on-board visual directors and can be directed by spotters; her missile armament doesnt need a loacal sensor for targeting information.

If your enemy can attack with impunity, delivering 13 bombs instead of 2 is little more than sending out another sortie

Your asumption is that they -can- attack with impunity; this assumption negates any argument about the advantages of more DDG = safety-in-numbers because if they can mission-kill 2 DDGs they can mission kill 13.

A ship without functioning radar faces threats that it cannot defend against, cannot hide from and cannot run from.

The Iowa-class, even with functioning radar, cannot defend aginnst air attacks, save forher toughness, something that she has like nothing else does. What's your point?

 

[deltabtry]

The Iowa's armor may protect against a critical hit from above, but even a tiny missile can still disable the radar and other vulnerable systems. Then the ship becomes a big target which can be sunk at leisure with bombs, heavy missiles or keel-breaking torpedo's. I should clarify my statement that such armor is of minimal usefulness in keeping the battleship from being knocked out of the battle, but it does aid in survivability. Assuming other vessels can engage in destroy the enemy, the armor would go a long way to keeping the battleship intact and easier tor repair later.

Actually if your to attack a battleship you should hit it from topside, the armor is non existent to minimal, even after the Arizona where armor was nothing but a wooden deck and metal plating. Now a battleship and a 2000 Lbs bomb from topside, even today this would be a effective weapon against a battleship.

 

[Goobieman]

Actually if your to attack a battleship you should hit it from topside, the armor is non existent to minimal, even after the Arizona where armor was nothing but a wooden deck and metal plating. Now a battleship and a 2000 Lbs bomb from topside, even today this would be a effective weapon against a battleship.

Battheships are designed to be protected from their own armament, both in direct fire to the hull (this is what the belt armor does) and plunging fire from above. The decks of the Iowa-class are designed to set off bombs and HE shells as they pennetrate the weather deck and then contain the explosion between that and the next two decks, before they reach the vital areas beneath. As someone who has personally seen the plating of the various decks, to say they are unprotected could not be more wrong.

The Arizona was struck by a specially-designed AP bomb - a modified AP shell from one of their battleships - that just happened to hit the right place. A standard GP/HE bomb wouldd not have done what the lucky hit with just the right weapon did.

Never mind the fact that no one has or makes AP bombs to drop from aircraft.

 

[deltabtry]

Battheships are designed to be protected from their own armament, both in direct fire to the hull (this is what the belt armor does) and plunging fire from above. The decks of the Iowa-class are designed to set off bombs and HE shells as they pennetrate the weather deck and then contain the explosion between that and the next two decks, before they reach the vital areas beneath. As someone who has personally seen the plating of the various decks, to say they are unprotected could not be more wrong.

The Arizona was struck by a specially-designed AP bomb - a modified AP shell from one of their battleships - that just happened to hit the right place. A standard GP/HE bomb wouldd not have done what the lucky hit with just the right weapon did.

Never mind the fact that no one has or makes AP bombs to drop from aircraft.

As someone who has personally seen the plating of the various decks, to say they are unprotected could not be more wrong.

I knew you were going to say this, I should have been more clear...just making a comparison to the hulls armor.

Never mind the fact that no one has or makes AP bombs to drop from aircraft.

But the military does have such weapons, it's called bunker busters. 5,000 lbs bomb that can be guided and dropped from a distance. All in all with weapons of today Battleships for the most part would not be able to engage in a sea to sea battle. That said, as far as shore support and NGF, it can be used but I would say not against a advanced opposing military. Also with the advancement of submarine warfare battleships would be easy pickings, not only from advanced weaponry in regards to torpedo's but, even airborne munitions launched for submarines.

 

[Goobieman]

I knew you were going to say this, I should have been more clear...just making a comparison to the hulls armor.

Well, yes. Naval guns in direct fire are far more effective than at distance with plunging fire. The point is that the ship are designed to take multiple hits from 2700lb AP rounds and continue to fight.
Nothing in anyonme arsenal, including ours, puts out that kind of force.

But the military does have such weapons, it's called bunker busters. 5,000 lbs bomb that can be guided and dropped from a distance.

A distance... of about 5NM. Thats a lot of defended airpace to get thru. And, of course, you forget - WE have these weapons and WE have the platforms to deliver them. Who else does?
Further, assuming you could get the an asset into position, you'd have to work out a firing solution againt a manuvering target. "Bunker buster" bombs are designed for use against stationary targets.
So, I would agree that if you are the Imperial Japanese fleets flying F111s in an attack against moored ships in Pearl Harbor, these weapons would be GREAT.

All in all with weapons of today Battleships for the most part would not be able to engage in a sea to sea battle.

This is not so. There are few, if any, anti-ship missiles in the word that are effective against a BB, and the BB carries more ASMs that any other ship in the world.
Consider for a moment the most recent Chinese ASM, the YJ-82. 120km range, Mach 0.9 sea-skimming missile with a 365lb HE warhead. While there would vertainly be some collateral damage to unprotcted superstructure, such missiles would bounce off the armore belt.
Sure, you'd not want your BBG to go against a CVNG, but who has CVNGs?

Also with the advancement of submarine warfare battleships would be easy pickings, not only from advanced weaponry in regards to torpedo's but, even airborne munitions launched for submarines

.
Assuming you could get a submarine into position, sure. But this applies to any and every ship and so isnt a mark against the BB.

 

[deltabtry]

Well, yes. Naval guns in direct fire are far more effective than at distance with plunging fire. The point is that the ship are designed to take multiple hits from 2700lb AP rounds and continue to fight.
Nothing in anyonme arsenal, including ours, puts out that kind of force.


A distance... of about 5NM. Thats a lot of defended airpace to get thru. And, of course, you forget - WE have these weapons and WE have the platforms to deliver them. Who else does?
Further, assuming you could get the an asset into position, you'd have to work out a firing solution againt a manuvering target. "Bunker buster" bombs are designed for use against stationary targets.
So, I would agree that if you are the Imperial Japanese fleets flying F111s in an attack against moored ships in Pearl Harbor, these weapons would be GREAT.


This is not so. There are few, if any, anti-ship missiles in the word that are effective against a BB, and the BB carries more ASMs that any other ship in the world.
Consider for a moment the most recent Chinese ASM, the YJ-82. 120km range, Mach 0.9 sea-skimming missile with a 365lb HE warhead. While there would vertainly be some collateral damage to unprotcted superstructure, such missiles would bounce off the armore belt.
Sure, you'd not want your BBG to go against a CVNG, but who has CVNGs?

.
Assuming you could get a submarine into position, sure. But this applies to any and every ship and so isnt a mark against the BB.

OK..LOL you must be a strong advocate for the BB's as I am as well. I would love to see our BB's reactivated 1943 and later due to hull design for speed and profile. I agree BB's can be used but I ask, why doesn't the Navy see your point of view. Perhaps these BB's are historic, highly decorated and considered a national treasure. Although there is nothing like the awesome sight of a BB on the horizon watching your back...Semper Fi. BTW I have the Joy of hearing the USS Constitution fire her cannons every day at 0900 and 2100 hrs, yet the elites in condo's near by have a problem with this, thank God the residents of Charlestown MA. shot those complaints down.

 

[Goobieman]

OK..LOL you must be a strong advocate for the BB's as I am as well. I would love to see our BB's reactivated 1943 and later due to hull design for speed and profile. I agree BB's can be used but I ask, why doesn't the Navy see your point of view?

It does - there's simpy no naval threat that requires them.

 

[deltabtry]

It does - there's simpy no naval threat that requires them.

Now this I agree with except the Yamato but she sits at the bottom of the Pacific..