The Great Battle Wagons need to come back!

[Datlofff]

Except still haven't found anything that is remotely as good at shore bombardment.

Not really relevant since air strikes followed by marines dropped by helicopters > bombarding the shore and launching an amphibious invasion.

And how is that going to work against beach heads defended by SAM sites?

[Genivaria]

Which is a moot point since the carrier doesn't need to be in missile range to be a threat, the biggest advantage that a carrier has over any ship is that it threat range doesn't 1st require line of sight, simply for their planes to have enough fuel to reach you.

but if the battleship has drones? different story

Why are you obsessed with putting drones on battleships of all things?
Carriers could do that same job but much better.

[Vassenor]

Mostly because we've not had to do a massed amphibious landing for decades.

Except for the gulf war with Ad-Dawarh, and the Al-faw Peninsula raid in the Iraq war.

And yet somehow despite the lack of battleship support the coalition forces at Al Faw took a whole 19 casualties.

[Vassenor]

Not really relevant since air strikes followed by marines dropped by helicopters > bombarding the shore and launching an amphibious invasion.

And how is that going to work against beach heads defended by SAM sites?

>implying SEAD isn't a thing

[Imperializt Russia]

The Iowas were reactivated in the 1980s to comply with the "800 ship navy" concept - dickwaving against the Soviets, and national prestige longing for the romanticised days of naval fleet action.
The importance of gunnery support in naval operations is well understood, which is why the US Navy is investing heavily in the railgun concept, to create a platform that can be carried aboard a destroyer-sized vessel.

Battleships, and battleship-sized ships, are fairly useless, as are their 16 inch guns.
The 'danger close' range on an Iowa shell is something in the region of two miles, despite its tiny bursting charge of about 50lbs (like, 4% of the shell weight). It's impractical. Gunnery, generally, is not.

Seaborne landings of the scale of D-Day or even Iwo Jima are obsolete, as are the battleships that supported those operations.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Except for the gulf war with Ad-Dawarh, and the Al-faw Peninsula raid in the Iraq war.

And yet somehow despite the lack of battleship support the coalition forces at Al Faw took a whole 19 casualties.

TBF Arabs are shit at war.

[Rost Dreadnorramus]

Which if we ever need to do a large invaision our troops are going to be screwed like they were at Omaha in D day, those men went ashore before the battleships had done their bombardment and many of those brave men were killed, mean while it was not near as bad on the other beaches because the battleships had been given the chance to soften the defenses.

What even is the Pacific War right?
Seriously the Marines who fought the Japanese dug outs in the Pacific would fucking hate you.

I did'nt say that it was a walk in the park, but compared to Omaha it was better.

[Bakery Hill]

but if the battleship has drones? different story

Why are you obsessed with putting drones on battleships of all things?
Carriers could do that same job but much better.

yes, why am I in favour of the future? of goodness? virtue etc.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

What even is the Pacific War right?
Seriously the Marines who fought the Japanese dug outs in the Pacific would fucking hate you.

I did'nt say that it was a walk in the park, but compared to Omaha it was better.

>Iwo Jima
>Okinawa
I shiggy diggy.

[Rost Dreadnorramus]

Which is a moot point since the carrier doesn't need to be in missile range to be a threat, the biggest advantage that a carrier has over any ship is that it threat range doesn't 1st require line of sight, simply for their planes to have enough fuel to reach you.

but if the battleship has drones? different story

Which they did carry by the way.
And they made those guns even more deadly.

[Datlofff]

Which if we ever need to do a large invaision our troops are going to be screwed like they were at Omaha in D day, those men went ashore before the battleships had done their bombardment and many of those brave men were killed, mean while it was not near as bad on the other beaches because the battleships had been given the chance to soften the defenses.

What even is the Pacific War right?
Seriously the Marines who fought the Japanese dug outs in the Pacific would fucking hate you.

And the battleships did a great job there helping to suppress the defenders so the marines could take the islands. So much so the USN standard types would stay there for days constantly shelling the coasts are the marines advanced inland. To discount the work of the battleships who supported EVERY major landing with shell fire is very poor historical analysis.

[Haydonia-Triumphi]

The only job they may do well is shore bombardment, and the last true example of them undertaking this role was decades ago. Since then technology has massively advanced, heck even from their use in the 1990's there's been massive advances in weapon systems that could easily strike any vessel trying to sit off the coast and bombard a landing zone or country.

The reality is they have no role in modern martime warfare, they can't win a fight on the open seas and perform power projection anywhere near the level of a carrier, they can't even realistically win an engagement against a modern destroyer without some serious retrofitting, which would cost a small fortune and require the reopening of industry and skills that just are not mainstream or easily done today.

Like it or not the pysological factor to me is also a has been factor, I think most people I know would find it comical to think of the US navy fielding a relic in the 21st century.

Battleships had their day but that twilight has long since sunk behind the horrison in the face of modern missile technology and in the face of aircraft.

Except still haven't found anything that is remotely as good at shore bombardment.

It's not just battleships that are a have been item, shore bombardment in the way you're thinking is also a long gone realistic strategy.

Part of the reason the Zumwalt whilst a failure was designed the way it was is to make it a difficult target and silhouette for the numerous weapon system, modern targeting systems and aircraft that the battleships you want to recommissioning are just not prepared or correctly designed to counter.

[Sleet Clans]

Unless those battleships are armed with railguns and have adequate anti-air protection, they're going to be useless except in gunboat diplomacy against small nations whos biggest warships are corvettes. Even though at least two of the Iowa-class can be refurbished by the navy at any time, that is not likely to happen due to the sheer cost of refurbishing even one Iowa-class. And then there is the railgun problem. The one reason the navy doesn't have the Zumwalt-class (Basically as close to a battleship as we are going to get right now) destroyers in droves is because of two things: One, the sheer power needed to fire a railgun is going to be extremely costly, and we can see this in just how much it took to develop and build the Zumwalts. Two, the ammunition is also expensive as hell. You'd think that the shells for a railgun would be cheap. They ain't, not by a wide margin.

Sure, railguns could eventually come to replace the missile as the go-to weapon for warships at sea, but aircraft will still hold superiority at long range. The F18E Hornet can fly five times the range of a railgun, and what use are high velocity large caliber shells going to be against a plane doing Mach 1.5 and flinging ship-killing missiles at you like no tomorrow?

[Vassenor]

What even is the Pacific War right?
Seriously the Marines who fought the Japanese dug outs in the Pacific would fucking hate you.

I did'nt say that it was a walk in the park, but compared to Omaha it was better.

At Iwo Jima the naval bombardment completely failed to neutralise the Japanese defences and the first wave got minced.

[Des-Bal]

yes, why am I in favour of the future? of goodness? virtue etc.

Your idea of the future is pikemen with jetpacks.

[Rost Dreadnorramus]

An unidentified Marine E-9 (Sergeant) commented about the necessity of battleships when referring to combat in Vietnam, “When you back is to the sea and you’ve nowhere to go, the enemy is climbing down your throat, then battleships are no longer are luxury – but, a NECESSITY! And if the weather is lousy and the planes are grounded, then battleships are a matter of life and death for us.” (Ralphs, Navy Times)

[Imperializt Russia]

Except for the gulf war with Ad-Dawarh, and the Al-faw Peninsula raid in the Iraq war.

And yet somehow despite the lack of battleship support the coalition forces at Al Faw took a whole 19 casualties.

Al-faw was also not a massed amphibious landing. It was in part a diversionary raid, and also a special forces operation. It was supported by British frigates and destroyers with 4.5" and 5" deck guns (and air power), against a defending force of about 1000 Iraqi troops.

Hardly the Atlantic Wall.

[Bakery Hill]

but if the battleship has drones? different story

Which they did carry by the way.
And they made those guns even more deadly.

drones and battleships together are unstoppable weapons of war

[Bakery Hill]

yes, why am I in favour of the future? of goodness? virtue etc.

Your idea of the future is pikemen with jetpacks.

I have not mentioned pikemen or jetpacks, only drones

[Vassenor]

What even is the Pacific War right?
Seriously the Marines who fought the Japanese dug outs in the Pacific would fucking hate you.

And the battleships did a great job there helping to suppress the defenders so the marines could take the islands. So much so the USN standard types would stay there for days constantly shelling the coasts are the marines advanced inland. To discount the work of the battleships who supported EVERY major landing with shell fire is very poor historical analysis.

At first it came as a ragged rattle of machine-gun bullets, growing gradually lower and fiercer until at last all the pent-up fury of a hundred hurricanes seemed to be breaking upon the heads of the Americans. Shells screeched and crashed, every hummock spat automatic fire and the very soft soil underfoot erupted underfoot with hundreds of exploding land mines ... Marines walking erect crumpled and fell. Concussion lifted them and slammed them down, or tore them apart ...[34]

Some suppression.

[Rost Dreadnorramus]

I did'nt say that it was a walk in the park, but compared to Omaha it was better.

At Iwo Jima the naval bombardment completely failed to neutralise the Japanese defences and the first wave got minced.

Because it was made of ash which did not react with HE rounds like normal soil did, it was not the fault of the BBs.

[Datlofff]

Cruisers are primarily anti ship. Destroyers are anti subs and escorts, thats why the A. Burkes carry mostly ASW equipment and AA missiles. Tomahawks are very expensive ways of going about shore bombardment, chucking inexpensive car sized lobs of steel is a much more effective and cheap method.

What's the cost per shell? Including the costs of restarting production of a munition that has not been manufactured for over thirty years?

Certainly less than 7 billion dollars. Though to make this clear, I'm not talking explicitly about bringing back the Iowa class. Im talking about bringing back a ship class with big guns for shore bombardment. You could make something along the lines of the Russian Kirov class, but give it guns so that it could support landings.

[Bakery Hill]

At Iwo Jima the naval bombardment completely failed to neutralise the Japanese defences and the first wave got minced.

Because it was made of ash which did not react with HE rounds like normal soil did, it was not the fault of the BBs.

in the future drones can analyse the soil in great detail

[The Empire of Pretantia]

What even is the Pacific War right?
Seriously the Marines who fought the Japanese dug outs in the Pacific would fucking hate you.

And the battleships did a great job there helping to suppress the defenders so the marines could take the islands. So much so the USN standard types would stay there for days constantly shelling the coasts are the marines advanced inland. To discount the work of the battleships who supported EVERY major landing with shell fire is very poor historical analysis.

Tens of thousands of casualties. Wooo, those battleships sure made the Pacific War a cake walk.

[Vassenor]

At Iwo Jima the naval bombardment completely failed to neutralise the Japanese defences and the first wave got minced.

Because it was made of ash which did not react with HE rounds like normal soil did, it was not the fault of the BBs.

And totally nothing to do with the construction of the Japanese fortifications on Mount Suribachi.