Should the US reactivate battleships?

[vienna]

The vulnerability of any vessel to more modern technology is obvious. Look at the USS Stark: attacked by an Iraqi fighter from about 15-20 miles away and hit by two Exocet missiles; only one exploded; if the second one had detonated, the Stark probably would have been sunk. Now, the Stark could do about 30 knots, tops; but, much like the Lamborghini outrunning a Boomer question in another thread, in a speed contest with a locked-in missile, no ship is going to win that race...

...and consider the vulnerability of warships to low tech threats: the USS Cole was severely damaged and almost destroyed by a couple of guys in what wasn't much more than an explosive packed dinghy...




<O>

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Julhelm

Battleships were hopelessly outmoded the moment Billy Mitchell sank one.

Quite true, though it took Pearl Harbor and the sinking of HMS Prince Of Wales before the lesson set in.

The Iowa's armor protection is comparatively weak and pretty much any modern SSM would mission-kill it outright.

Here I only partly agree. "Mission-kill" is a tricky concept. If the mission is to deliver heavy artillery to a target, then no, the average SSM will not stop that. "Comparatively weak" is the problem. The armor on any battleship is designed to withstand its own shells at prescribed ranges, since the designers don't consider themselves to have adequate access to the other guy's firepower. This requires that the battle be kept to a range that balances the ship's own strengths and weaknesses. No anti-ship missile is what we would consider "armor-piercing". Yes, such a hit on a battleship has a fair chance of knocking out certain electronics, but it's not going to be catastrophic to such a ship.

Originally Posted by vienna

USS Stark

Unarmored. No defense against that sort of thing at all.

USS Cole

Again, completely unarmored. One-half inch of steel isn't going to stop a destroyer's 5" HC round, and it's not going to stop a boat full of explosives. That same attack would have had on effect on a battleship whatsoever.

Bismarck was disabled by dozens of armor-piercing rounds travelling at more than twice the speed of an anti-ship missile, with hardened heads specifically designed to get through that armor. Plus several torpedoes. Plus the scuttling.

Yamato and Musashi were attacked by dozens of bombs designed to get though light armor, coming straight down onto decks which were only lightly armored. The big killer there was the multiple torpedoes. Building anti-torpedo armor is difficult. It may be proof against one tin fish, but once it has done that job it is useless against a second hitting in the same place.

In all those cases the ships took a whole lot of killing. All that said, though, the torpedo is the bane of the battleships, and there are lots of submarines and lots of planes with lots of torpedoes out there.

In the end it would still be impractical to bring back the battleships, and a huge waste of money for a ship with such limited parameters.

[Rockstar]

I know after the Cole incident there were a boat load procedural changes which encouraged a much more rapid response to such threats. Before the incident one could say we werent really thinking about or all that prepared for such things. We are now though.

[Julhelm]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Quite true, though it took Pearl Harbor and the sinking of HMS Prince Of Wales before the lesson set in.

Here I only partly agree. "Mission-kill" is a tricky concept. If the mission is to deliver heavy artillery to a target, then no, the average SSM will not stop that. "Comparatively weak" is the problem. The armor on any battleship is designed to withstand its own shells at prescribed ranges, since the designers don't consider themselves to have adequate access to the other guy's firepower. This requires that the battle be kept to a range that balances the ship's own strengths and weaknesses. No anti-ship missile is what we would consider "armor-piercing". Yes, such a hit on a battleship has a fair chance of knocking out certain electronics, but it's not going to be catastrophic to such a ship.

Only the citadel is armored, but directors and sensor arrays are very vulnerable and if damaged would definitely mission kill a battleship. But something like SS-N-12 or SS-N-19 which were designed to kill US carriers would most likely defeat the Iowa's armor protection.

Bismarck was disabled by dozens of armor-piercing rounds travelling at more than twice the speed of an anti-ship missile, with hardened heads specifically designed to get through that armor. Plus several torpedoes. Plus the scuttling.

That is totally incorrect. Bismarck was effectively mission-killed by a single hit to the bow section which caused major flooding and a fuel leak. By the time the torpedo bombers attacked it, it had already aborted its mission to break out into the Atlantic.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Julhelm

Only the citadel is armored, but directors and sensor arrays are very vulnerable and if damaged would definitely mission kill a battleship. But something like SS-N-12 or SS-N-19 which were designed to kill US carriers would most likely defeat the Iowa's armor protection.

Carriers aren't armored at all, that I'm aware of. Your other points are good ones.

That is totally incorrect. Bismarck was effectively mission-killed by a single hit to the bow section which caused major flooding and a fuel leak. By the time the torpedo bombers attacked it, it had already aborted its mission to break out into the Atlantic.

Also an excellent point. I'm forced to agree.