Should the US reactivate battleships?
 

Just wondering what are your guys opinions. Should the United States reactivate the battleships that are museum ships such as the BB 61 Iowa, BB 63 Missouri, and BB 64 Wisconsin. With the rising threat from ISIS and North Korea I think that our battleships in the United States should be reactivated as a show of force and as a fear factor. there is one account from the gulf war that the Battleship Wisconsin had a group of Iraqi solders in the gulf war surrender to her RQ-2 Pioneer UAV because they saw the power that the UAV brought in the form. Of Wisconsin's 16 in guns when she fired on another trench line earlier. So in the end what do you think the United States should do reactivate battleships as a show of force or leave them how they are now as museum ships. I personally think they should be reactivated id love to here what your guys option is thanks. -Bishie2 :Kaleun_Salute:

No. They are very outdated both physically and strategically.

They were only good for shore bombardment and you can do more cheaper and further with rockets and missiles.

Battleships were cool, but ultimately never what the Navy thought they would be. I feel pretty confident we will never have a Jutland nor a War Plan Orange environment.

drones are cheaper.

I love battleships. In the day when they represented a government's power and influence they were indeed important, both as weapons and as symbols. Very expensive symbols. The problem was they were like Greek Heroes. Very impressive, and when one died the whole nation mourned.

The smaller ships were more like soldiers. Lots of them, and they carried the brunt of the battles. Battleships were mainly good for fighting each other, and not much else.

Shore bombardment was their final use. Which is more useful for that purpose, one battleship or a dozen destroyers, or a hundred airplanes?

I love battleships, but I don't see much use for them anymore.

The best capital ship imo would be the imperial star destroyer .

You're not thinking this through at all, you just focus on the superficial benefits, neglecting the issues this proposal has in tow.

First of all, reactivating them would require extensive repairs, refit, the training of crews and thorough shakedown cruises - which might take years, approval of congress - and billions of dollars.

For what?
To throw a few 16" rounds onto some beach, which can be done faster, better and ultimately cheaper by multiple other means, be it ships, subs or planes? And who says a show of force is even useful in this scenario?
I don't think America needs to prove much when it comes to military might, do you?
And do you think NK doesn't know that either?
Meanwhile ISIS is falling apart anyways and why fear an old BB that can't reach you in-lands anyways, when the real terror lurks somewhere above, able to strike anywhere, anytime, precise as a scalpel?

And let's say there's going to be war with NK and one of their Diesel subs will have a lucky day, killing the close-to-shore Missouri that's busy shelling some unworthy targets, only to play the good old "America, fantastic, yeah!" song?
What a devastating blow that would be - and I'm not even talking loss of life, I'm talking about the death of a symbol.
Sailor Steve said it best when he compared BBs to Greek heroes.

Again, think it through, it makes no sense at all. In 2017, no one's gonna be impressed by a rusty 16" gun platform with a few tomahawks anymore, not even NK.

More like a laugh factor, the Second World War was the final proof the age of the Battleship was over. And I am sure American's rather see their Battleships stay put for visitors to visit and take photos.

In modern naval warfare, no ship is immune to an air attack whether it is by a manned aircraft, a missile, or a drone, and the larger the vessel, the greater a target it would be; agility and low profile are the new norms. Consider what the reaction in the US would be if NK, Iran, or even terrorists were to lob a few well-aimed missiles or drones at a US carrier and sink it...

For an example, look back at the Falklands War and what happened to the ARA General Belgrano...




<O>

About five years or so ago I would have said yes to reactivation but the military world has changed dramatically since WWII so for all of the reasons already mentioned above I'd say let them lie gracefully to be admired for what they once were.

The only advantage with Battleships would be shore bombardment, but BBs are a blunt instrument, much like the WW2 Heavy Bombers.

Now with Precision Guided Munitions, both Laser and GPS guided, one Bomb or shell can take out a target that in WW2 would have required massive area bombing in the hope that one would actually hit the target.

So yes, BBs are obsolete.

Even though no longer part of the fleet, the USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin are still in reserve and could potentially be brought back in service, if required.

Here are some of the issues if they were re-activated:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...support_debate

and since we are talking about Battleships, a photo:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Washington.jpg

USS Washington firing her main battery at the IJN Kirishima, November 15, 1942.

One of the few BB vs BB battles of WW2.

'Strategic' projection of unmitigated power vs 'tactical' gunnery
 

Absolutely! "If ya got it flaunt it!"... but lets go visual on the concept!:Kaleun_Applaud: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...6aedeaeda0.jpg (This was the only occasion that all four Iowa Class BB's were steaming in formation(1954). Arguably; two years later...the most powerful surface armada the world ever saw: Mk 23 Atomic shells)....and upgrade the ammo slightly; talk about 'Katie! bar the door!' here!:O: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2419375&postcount=39 Precisely, and it's still all about showtime; actual shooting usually turns out quite dismally....for both sides as at Jutland for example. As per my post title: the Kaiser won the shooting match tactically but lost the battle and the war at sea strategically...as did Yamamoto at Pearl Harbor.

Actually that was very old torpedo against a very old American cruiser but your point actually says it all: everything is vulnerable; thus the very fast Iowa class BB's (33 knots!!!) may and should be reactivated with sufficient escorts and at least one outta-sight carrier group ready to pounce as we practice "innocent passage' right through the South China Sea the the way the Chinks like to skirt Alaska in the Bearing Strait. Precisely why it should not be done with the 16 inch guns beyond a few 'Show' rounds'; and USS Iowa's turret two is still inoperable, I believe, after the infamous fatal explosion anyway.

Quote:

For example, a full charge for the 16"/50 (40.64 cm) Mark 7 during the World War II period consisted of six propellant bags whose total propellant weight was 660.0 lbs. (299.4 kg) of SPD and 4.463 lbs. (2.1 kg) of gunpowder. Some references show this charge weight as 660.0 lbs. (299.4 kg) while others show it as 664.463 lbs. (301.4 kg). With the post-war adoption of the cooler burning propellant, the six bag full charge weight for this gun changed to 655.0 lbs. (297.108 kg) and 4.463 lbs. (2.1 kg) of gunpowder. Again, some references show this charge weight as 655.0 lbs. (297.108 kg) while others show it as 659.463 lbs. (299.2 kg).

With the atomic shellshttp://www.kbismarck.org/photos/mk23.jpgMk. 23 nuclear naval shells with an estimated yield of 15 to 20 kilotons.... widely advertised to our 'potential threats'....Fatboy of N. Korea in particular, together with tomahawk missiles, aegis weapons and the escorts, the mission is no longer prolonged shore-bombardment ala Lebanon but massive shows of force. The platform is still good but the gunnery and mission has changed.:salute: And if we paint the Iowa's white, Teddy R. would think it was 'just Bully"!:D 'Cause 'nuthin good goes outta style'...BBY https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ticut_1907.jpg
1907: the Great White Fleet circumnavigates the globe.:Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_White_Fleet

Originally posted in the "I never knew that" thread

"The Mark 7 Naval Gun 16" 50 Calibre that was used on the Iowa class Battle ships was used against a surface ship only once in combat.

16 Feb 44, the USS Iowa fired a salvo at the Japanese Destroyer Nowaki at about 35,000 yards, but did not sink her. All other Mark 7 Shots were either training or land bombardment.

(Fischer, Brad D.; Jurens, W. J. (2006). "Fast Battleship Gunnery during World War II: A Gunnery Revolution, Part II". Warship International. Vol. XLIII no. 1.)

During WWII, the accuracy of the Mk 7 rifle at range was pretty poor.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php

So even with the projectile tracking radar and our advanced FCS computers, we are still looking at no better than 150 yard accuracy. That's not so good when considering that even the HC (High capacity) Mark 14 projectile carried only a bursting charge of 153 pounds, in which half of that would be absorbed in fragmenting the projectile casing, leaves very little boom 150 yards away. The projectiles for the Mk 7 gun were still primarily big blocks of iron intended on slamming into the target assuming the target is big enough and does not move much.

There have been experimentation using sub-munitions, but they have not been too successful and too expensive

So let's look at the Mk 7 Gun operations.

Ammo and propellant is big and heavy. Normal battleship projectile load (and associated propellant) was about 130 rounds per gun barrel.

Which is probably enough considering the the life of the barrel was about 300 rounds and those barrels are not cheap nor easy to make.

Accuracy, even with today's electronics and the luxury of wasting a few rounds to get the trajectory right is still a best of 150 yards, with a 153 pound bursting charge. This means that you have to hit the target to really do any significant damage. Let's hope that our target is not much bigger than 200 yards and does not move. So what sort of targets would be appropriate?

Certainly not specific buildings. No, this is a weapon system for targeting small towns. Since there is a lack of large enemy fortifications, this would be a great terror weapon if you want to indiscriminately slaughter citizens, which is bad press. In Viet Nam, it was used a few times to create helicopter landing areas in the jungle, but there were better ways of doing that.

Shooting long distances with unguided munitions is a concept long dead.

Even old unguided rockets are better than a Mk 7 Rifle.

A SCUD-D (1980's technology), which is about as basic as you can get for TBM has a CEP of 50 meters, range of over 700,000 yards, explosive payload of about 2,000 pounds.

Pretty sure we have rockets and missiles that can do better than a SCUD-D

Battleships and the 16 inch rifle are, sadly, obsolete. Especially in today's OOTW environment where there are few stationary targets and a non-existent FEBA.

I would think that a better case could be made to reactivate (actually re-manufacture) Gato class WWII submarines. They would have more use than a WWII BB, in my opinion.

Battleships are cool, but then so are Trebuchets. :03:

I would not want to fight a war with either of them.

Many years ago I had that exact discussion on another forum. I had pointed out that naval gunnery overall had an average 7% accuracy, with 2% at extreme ranges and about 12% at 5,000 yards. During the discussion one member was overly honest about his days in the army: "I was in the artillery, and I can guarantee you we hit the ground at least 98% of the time."

Of course an island is a much bigger target than a ship, so if your shooting at an island with nothing but enemy troops on it you've got a great chance of doing some serious damage, which is where the battleships finally found their niche. Not much of that these days.