The Great Battle Wagons need to come back!

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Bringing back battleships is very much a solution looking for a problem.

The problem is the lack of virility in sailors, and the solution is battleships.

[Dooom35796821595]

Bringing back battleships is very much a solution looking for a problem.

The problem is the lack of virility in sailors, and the solution is battleships.

I’m sure Freud had some opinion on the subject of bigger is better.

[The South Falls]

In our day, probably not. We should advance from here, not go back.

[The New California Republic]

Bringing back battleships is very much a solution looking for a problem.

The problem is the lack of virility in sailors, and the solution is battleships.

There is something about those big guns.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

The problem is the lack of virility in sailors, and the solution is battleships.

I’m sure Freud had some opinion on the subject of bigger is better.

No you don't understand. Big boom increases testosterone levels, restoring potency and enhancing sex lives.

[Dooom35796821595]

I’m sure Freud had some opinion on the subject of bigger is better.

No you don't understand. Big boom increases testosterone levels, restoring potency and enhancing sex lives.

Well no, I don’t understand. But I’m not Freud. And I don’t subscribe to the bigger is better idea, I believe better is better.

[The New California Republic]

I don’t subscribe to the bigger is better idea

Oh sweet summer child...

[The South Falls]

The problem is the lack of virility in sailors, and the solution is battleships.

There is something about those big guns.

Lotsa seamen in them.

[Dooom35796821595]

I don’t subscribe to the bigger is better idea

Oh sweet summer child...

I think that would be more applicable to people who still hold onto the idea of bigger is better.

[Sovaal]

Bringing back battleships is very much a solution looking for a problem.

The problem is the lack of virility in sailors, and the solution is battleships.

What are you talking about? The navy is filled with seamen.

[Len Hyet]

Why the U. S. Navy Should Reactivate the Remaining Iowa-class Battleships

Paul R. Stoetzer

20 April 2000

Enemy beaches and coastal waters are two of the most dangerous areas for the US Armed Forces. The reason: The US Navy blatantly refuses to reactivate the two remaining Iowa-class Battleships, leaving thousands of Marines and sailors lives in jeopardy. If an amphibious landing, like those on D-Day or at Okinawa in World War II becomes necessary, many Marines and sailors will be slaughtered needlessly in the attack. The US Navy should not over look this glaring inadequacy; the consequences are far, far too great.

Battleships have had a long, interesting history. In the mid-1800’s, naval experts experimented with new technologies such as steam power, iron armor, and heavy rifled guns. In 1862, during the American Civil War, naval warfare was changed forever when the Union ironclad USS Monitor and the Confederate ironclad CSS Virginia engaged off Hampton Roads, Virginia. The ships fought to a draw, as none of the weapons of either vessel were powerful enough to penetrate the iron of the other, but the battle changed the way naval officers and architects thought forever. In the late 1870’s and early 1880’s, nations experimented with steel-hulled cruisers powered by steam and using heavy rifled cannon. These ships used all modern technology, throwing centuries old sail technology away. In the early 1890’s, these ships were improved with newer technologies and expanded into huge ships designed to destroy anything they encountered and to project a nation’s power around the world. These ships were named battleships and provoked a massive naval arms race in the early 1900’s, primarily between Great Britain, France, and Germany. In 1906, the first modern battleship, the British HMS Dreadnought, was commissioned. The ship was powered by steam from huge coal boilers and carried large-caliber guns in revolving turrets, which enabled the ship to fire on a target without changing course. It had thick steel armor and set the standard for all future battleship design. This arms race continued until World War I began in 1914.

During World War I, battleships escorted convoys and fought duels and small engagements with other ships, mostly. In late May of 1916, however, the full force of two nation’s huge battleship fleets clashed off Jutland. Britain and Germany fought this battle to a draw, but battleships had proven their power. After World War I, though, battleships would start their demise as symbols of national power.

In 1921, the Washington Naval Treaty imposed a moratorium on the production of capital ships such as battleships for ten years and limited the tonnage, displacement, and gun caliber of other vessels. Aircraft Carriers, however, were allowed by the treaty, which was signed by Great Britain, the United States, Japan, France, and Italy. The role of the battleship was questioned by naval experts who insisted that aircraft carriers were the way of the future, however, most admirals still saw the need for the heavy guns and thick armor of a powerful battleship and refused to let them die.

In the 1930’s, battleship development was still halted in most nations. Although allowed in 1931, most nations did not build up their fleets and instead relied on old World War I-era battleships. These nations did, however, begin to plan the next class of their powerful capital ships. On 17 May 1936, the US Congress approved an act authorizing a new class of battleships, the Iowa-class, and ordered the first two built, BB-61, USS Iowa, and BB-62, USS New Jersey. However, those would not be the only two. Most military experts considered the Japanese the enemy and the need to build up the weakening US Navy was seen. On 12 June 1936, the General Board and War Plans division approved a fast (33 knot) design for the Iowa-class and ordered two more built, the BB-63, USS Missouri, and BB-64, USS Wisconsin. In July 1940 after the fall of France and the realization that a two-ocean war, a military nightmare, was becoming a reality, Congress authorized a large emergency construction program. This included two new Iowa’s, BB-65, USS Illinois, and BB-66, USS Kentucky. Only the Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri, and Wisconsin were completed late in World War II in 1945. The other two, Illinois and Kentucky, were partially built and would later be used for parts. World War II would change naval warfare forever and relegate the battleship to a supporting role.

On 7 December 1941, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and severely crippled the US battle fleet. Although all battleships sunk except the Arizona and the California would be salvaged, the damage forced the US to wage war without a large battleship fleet for a time until the North Carolina, South Dakota, and Iowa class ships were completed and the sunken battleships could be raised and repaired. This allowed the aircraft carrier become the capital ships of the fleet. In fact, in May of 1942, the Americans repelled a Japanese invasion of Australia at Coral Sea without using opposing ships firing on each other. All of the fighting was by carrier aircraft. A month later, the American fleet repelled a Japanese invasion of Midway Island in the same way, although battleships were there to protect the vulnerable carriers.

Battleships did play an essential role in the war effort, however. They were immensely valuable in protecting carriers; the South Dakota once shot down nearly thirty-six aircraft in five minutes. An unidentified naval officer described them as, “floating anti-aircraft fortresses.” The battleship’s heavy guns were also extremely useful in amphibious assaults all over the world. During the struggle for Okinawa in 1945, battleships expended 23,157 rounds of 16-inch, 12-inch, and 14-inch heavy ammunition weighing nearly 12,000 tons in support of US Marines and Army forces (Donnigan and Nofi 91). The USS Missouri was even selected, out of all other ships in the fleet, to host the surrender of the Japanese to General of the Army Douglas MacArthur on 2 September 1945. The future for battleships in the years after the war was not, however, very good.

After World War II, the battleship’s usefulness was, however, questioned. Proponents of naval aviation insisted that battleships were no longer useful. Immediately after the war, all South Dakota and North Carolina-class ships were decommissioned. In 1948, the New Jersey and the Wisconsin were decommissioned. In 1949, the Iowa saw a similar fate. This left the proud US fleet with only one battleship, the Missouri, and it was downgraded to a training vessel with a reduced crew. This would change in 1950, however.

In 1950, the Korean War broke out and the USS Missouri was the only US Battleship ready to fight. The Iowa’s were all recommissioned to join the war effort. They were slightly modified and updated with new radar and communications systems and minor weapon upgrades. Helicopters were also added. The Missouri and the others all fought well, supporting troops in Korea and destroying bridges, supply depots, and other targets. However, after the war, the battleship’s fate was again uncertain. Many improvements were planned, including the addition of missiles and total refits. These were never implemented and all US battleships were decommissioned in 1958.

In the 1960’s another conflict broke out in Asia. This time it was in Vietnam and the US Navy had no battleships. In 1967, the subject of reactivating one or two battleships was brought up once again. However, naval aviation officers were highly opposed to this. They considered battleships a threat to naval aviation. The US Marine Corps did support reactivation because they knew the value of heavy fire support to troops and how immensely useful they had been in World War II and Korea. The New Jersey was finally recommissioned on 6 April 1968, however President Johnson had ended all offensive combat operations in North Vietnam, which eliminated many targets. Before Johnson’s order, however, over 80% of the targets attacked by aircraft, with heavy losses to US forces, could have been hit and destroyed by a battleship’s huge 16 inch guns. During the war, 700 sorties were flown against the Thanh Hoa Bridge in North Vietnam and the Vietnamese shot down many US aircraft. The New Jersey could have destroyed the target within an hour with no losses to US forces (Sumrall 47-50). When peace talks finally opened up, the Vietnamese were so frightened of the New Jersey, that they ordered it decommissioned as a condition of the talks. The US had 4 aircraft carriers nearby, but it was the battleship they were afraid of. They could always shoot down US planes, but not destroy the New Jersey (Sumrall 50). By 1972, the US Navy was once again without a battleship.

After the Vietnam War ended proponents of battleships tried to bring them back several times unsuccessfully. During the 1970’s, all remaining ships with 8-inch guns were decommissioned. Ships with six-inch guns were scarce. Studies were done, and a strong interest in battleship recommissioning was shown in 1979. President Carter, however, was totally opposed to the idea, although reactivation would cost about $326 million per ship or about as much as a frigate (Sumrall 56). In 1980, Ronald Reagan became president and began a naval buildup, the “600-ship Navy.” The theory was that in threat areas, a Battleship Battlegroup, a three-ship force of two destroyers and the battleship, would reinforce a Carrier Vehicle Battlegroup. The Iowa’s were all brought out of mothballs and updated with new missile systems and advanced radar, communications, and guidance systems. In 1989, however, tragedy struck when the Iowa’s turret number two exploded, killing 47 sailors and wounding over a hundred. This was a terrible tragedy, but it was an isolated incident. There has never been an accident in a turret on a US battleship before or after. The Iowa was decommissioned in 1990. Battleships had not seen their last action, though, as Saddam Hussein, president of Iraq, was looking towards the rich oil fields of his neighbor, Kuwait.

In August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. The US built up its military force in the Persian Gulf region. This included sending the USS Missouri and USS Wisconsin into the Persian Gulf to support ground forces and bombard enemy positions in Kuwait and Iraq. On 16 January 1991, the US launched Operation Desert Storm, the air war against Iraq. The Missouri and Wisconsin fired some of the first shots of the war when they launched Tomahawk cruise missiles into Iraq. The ships later supported the invasion of Iraq and Kuwait in February and helped win the ground war in an astounding 100 hours. This, however, was the last opportunity for battleships to prove themselves. They were decommissioned in 1992 along with the New Jersey. Today, the US fleet, which is the largest in the world, does not have a single battleship. This worries many experts and endangers the lives of many fine young soldiers who will have to fight without any strong fire support.

NSFS or Naval Surface Fire Support is the naval bombardment of enemy positions in preparation for a ground assault. The purpose is to allow Marine Corps amphibious assaults to be performed without unnecessary loss of life. Marine Corps units are mostly infantry-based formations that depend on the fire of supporting units. However, current systems and systems being developed are inadequate to support the needs of Marines.

The current largest naval gun is a five-inch gun. They have a range of approximately twenty miles and cannot kill a tank at maximum range, which is essential for fire support. Twenty miles is close enough for heavy minefields that would be deadly to current vessels (Morison, Navy News) Missile systems are looked on as alternatives for guns. However, in the 1998 attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan, 75 missiles were fired. This cost over $75 million in ordinance alone. According to the US Navy, the reactivation for one battleship would also cost around $75 million (Selle, Navy Times). The future system to overcome this inability is the ERGM, or Extended Range Guided Munition. It has a range of 100 nautical miles and is fired from a five-inch gun. However, the warhead is only 19 pounds and it cannot kill a tank either. The Marine Corps said in a 6 August 1997 letter that ERGM could not meet its requirements for lethal high-volume, high explosive fires and timelieness (Ralphs, USNFSA Web Site). Air power cannot provide effective fire support either. On 9 April 1999, during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, the USS Theodore Roosevelt could not attack any enemy positions because her aircraft could not fly due to bad weather. A battleship would have had all the targets in Kosovo within range and the ships Unmanned Aerial Vehicle could have acquired the targets under cloud cover(Ralphs, Navy Times). Who says the enemy will not attack in bad weather? This demonstrates that air power is ineffective in supporting combat troops in bad weather. Also, bombers cannot deliver the tonnage that a battleship can. They also cannot sustain bombing for very long. A German military journal captured on 16 June 1944, after the invasion of Normandy, states that fleet bombardments were more effective than air power.

It may be that the part played by the fleet was more decisive than that of the air forces because the fire was better aimed and unlike the bomber formations, it had not to confine itself to short bursts of fire…Repeatedly, strong formations of warships and cruisers are used against single coastal batteries, thus bringing an extraordinarily superior firepower to bear on them. Moreover, time and again they put up and umbrella of fire over the defenders at the focal points of the fighting compared with which incessant air attacks have only a modest effect.

(Ralphs and Welch, USNFSA web site.)

This lack of fire support worries many military experts and endangers the lives of many fine young Marines who will have to fight without proper support.

Marines are worried about this lack of fire support. Tom Clancy, respected author of military fiction and military books said about this lack of support in his book, Marine, “The US Navy has lost over half of their total fire support capability with the decommissioning of the Iowa-class (BB-61) battleships and the retirement of many support aircraft and artillery units.” (96). The fire from ships and supporting units must be accurate and lethal enough to allow lightly armed Marines to stand up to everything they have to fight. Without firepower, Marines trade lives for objectives and the American people will not accept excessive casualties. Many Marines miss the Iowa-class battleships. 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)

Lack of NSFS has been a major problem in past campaigns. Omaha Beach at Normandy on 6 June 1944, as depicted in the horrifying opening sequences of Saving Private Ryan, was a horrible situation for many US soldiers. The Americans decided to land an hour early than the British to take advantage of a lower tide and fewer submerged obstacles. They had to reduce the naval bombardment to 40 minutes. This was compared to two hours and thirty minutes at Utah. The 2nd Ranger Battalion, the 29th Infantry Division, and the 1st Infantry Division landed at Omaha. Within three hours, the 29th had suffered 60% casualties, including most of its armor and engineers, and was combat ineffective. By comparison, Utah was easy. The 4th Infantry Division suffered fewer than 200 men and easily accomplished all objectives after the long bombardment (Badsey 33). Most of the 4,649 casualties suffered by the Americans occurred at Omaha Beach (Keegan 388). Respected military author John Keegan commented about the horrors of Omaha Beach in The Second World War, “(The invasion went pretty well) for all except the Americans doomed to the agony of Omaha Beach…(the soldiers at) Omaha Beach had undergone most of the invasion ordeals.” (382-386). Although many opponents of the reactivation of battleships say that a Normandy or Iwo Jima type landing will never be done again, Sun Tzu in his still applicable Art of War said about the unpredictable nature of war, “One cannot always avoid a fight-One cannot always choose your battlefields.” (Ralphs and Welch, USNFSA Web Site)

The US Congress is also worried about the lack of fire support for troops. Congress has ordered the US Navy to at least keep the battleships ready to be reactivated and has repeatedly ordered the US Navy to correct the lack of fire support capability. However, the Navy has done nothing substatinal to comply. They do have the Iowa-class battleships, sitting in mothballs (Morison, Navy News)

Battleships are well suited for providing NSFS as well as performing other necessary jobs. They are equipped with long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles, heavy 16-inch guns which can fire numerous types of ammunition long-ranges (in excess of 100 miles), and anti-aircraft missiles. The battleships huge 16-inch guns best perform NSFS. During the Persian Gulf War, Iraqis on Faylaka Island in the Persian Gulf surrendered to the Wisconsin’s Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (providing spotting for the ships guns) rather than face certain death from a salvo of 16-inch shells. A projectile that was being developed in the late 1980’s had a range of 100 miles and carried 200 lbs of high explosive at a cost of only $35,000 per round (Ralphs, Navy Times), compared to $400,000-$1,000,000 per round for missile based alternatives. Unlike guns, these missiles can also be jammed because they will not work without exact coordinates. Guns also have a higher capacity, only take about 90 seconds to two minutes, thirty seconds to travel maximum range (depending on the projectile). Missiles will require nearly five to seven minutes for flight, which is too long when Marines are being trapped by enemy tanks on a beach (Ralphs, “Joint Warfare”). A sixteen-inch projectile is also the most powerful penetrator short of a tactical nuclear warhead, and nobody wants to use those in combat (Ralphs and Welch, USNFSA Web Site). Their weaponry can also be upgraded and expanded very easily. They are also the most survivable ships in the fleet and can risk going into harm’s way when necessary. In March 1996, China threatened Taiwan by firing missiles into shipping lanes. However, the ships of the US Carrier Vehicle Battlegroups sent in response could not risk directly challenging China’s threats. A battleship could have, while making a dramatic impact (Stearman, “Military Advantage”). Also, the Navy’s resources are stretched in times of crises. During the NATO bombings of Yugoslavia, the Carrier Vehicle Battlegroups (CVBG) of the USS Enterprise and the USS Theodore Roosevelt were used. The USS Kitty Hawk was moved to the Persian Gulf. However, this left the Pacific Ocean without a carrier presence. The US Navy can barely wage a small-scale conflict without significant straining. It would be seriously stretched in a full-scale war. Although costs for another CVBG are prohibitive (about $2 billion), a Battleship Battlegroup (BBG) could have provided a low cost (about $75 million for reactivation plus $40 million a year), effective military deterrent in the Pacific (Ralphs, Navy Times). Their powerful punch is not all they have over current vessels.

Battleships can also serve many other functions, including refueling a fleet. The Iowa-class can carry 2.5 million gallons of oil. They can also serve as a base for special forces. Special operations units can talk to a command unit via satellite. The ship can provide GPS coordinates to the troops and the forces can order fire support, all well the ship’s mere presence frightens the leaders, military, and inhabitants of the country. The Iowa-class can also launch up to company (250) sized infantry units. They can also provide repair shops, medical facilities, and command centers. They are also capable of transiting the Panama Canal, which no carrier can do. Although the were commissioned during World War II, they still have ten to twenty years of life without the Service Life Extension Program because they were in mothballs for most of that time (Selle, Proceedings) They also are capable of deterring an enemy by its mere presence.

The Iowa-class battleships have a psychological impact on the enemy as well. Russia’s latest warship, the Peter The Great was described in the 5 May 1996 Washington Post as a, “massive six-deck cruiser, bristling with weapons.” The Russians regard weaponry as instruments for waging politics and diplomacy but kept ready for war if necessary. The Russians make ships warlike and effective for a show of force. However, the US Navy has taken a technical, functional approach. The boxy, costly ships of today’s navy keep weapons hidden except for the tiny five-inch gun. The ships and carriers are vulnerable to enemy fire and look too “toylike” to have a psychological impact. Warren Zimmerman, the last US Ambassador to Yugoslavia, commented on this psychological effect, “A battleship off Dubrovnik in October, 1991 might have discouraged Serb aggression.” (Stearman, “Military Advantage”). The former captain of the USS Iowa, Captain Larry Seaquist recalled the Iowa’s effect on the Iraqis and Iranians during its deployment to the Persian Gulf during the Iran-Iraq War.

What the Navy does these days is try to influence events ashore, and that’s what a battleship does…When we would sail the Iowa down the Strait of Hormuz during the Iran-Iraq War, all southern Iran would go quiet. We were in an active tanker war and Iran's Revolutionary Guard was steaming around in ships with rockets and shooting at ships. When we arrived, all of that stuff stopped. (Stearman, “Military Advantage”)

The Iowa-class is unequaled for a psychological display of force. However, the Navy depreciates the value of psychological force and wants to eliminate what they call “gunboat diplomacy.” (Stearman, “Military Advantage”) Senator John S. McCain III of Arizona, a former naval officer and son as well as grandson of naval admirals has commented about the psychological role of battleships in front of the Senate.

Missiles are not a substitute for the kind of impact well-directed artillery can have on the battlefield. The psychological role of battleships in dissuading hostile regimes from acting against US interests is an intangible asset that is under-appreciated…The five-inch gun common to the surface combatants is largely ineffective in most contingencies…The very substantial attributes of these platforms remain more relevant than during the Cold War. The navy’s emphasis on littoral (near the coast) operations…has increased the value of battleships immeasurably…I can think of no compelling reason for mothballing the last of the battleships…and every reason for retaining them in the fleet…This is an issue of importance to US foreign policy and ground soldiers whose lives may depend on timely support from large guns off-shore

(Ralphs, Navy Times)

Battleships are an absolute necessity to the current US fleet. Their versatileness, ruggedness, and powerful weapon systems make them a perfect compliment to the US Navy and another tool for today and tomorrow’s military leaders. The US should not allow young men to die needlessly in combat due to inadequate weaponry. Although the Missouri and New Jersey are currently museums, the Iowa and Wisconsin are not doing anything valuable sitting in mothballs. The US Navy should reactivate the two remaining Iowa-class battleships now, before the inevitable, costly battle.

Bibliography

Badsey, Stephen. Normandy 1944: Allied Landings and Breakout. London: Reed International Books Ltd: 1997

Clancy, Tom. Marine: A Guided Tour of a Marine Expeditionary Unit. New York: The Berkeley Publishing Unit: 1996

Keegan, John. The Second World War. New York: Penguin Books: 1989

Donnigan, James F. and Albert F. Nofi. Victory at Sea: World War II in the Pacific. New York: Quill: 1995

Morison, Samuel Loring. “Lack of Naval Surface Fire Support Capability Causes Undue Risk to US Troops”. Navy News and Undersea Technology. May 10, 1999 (Reprint)

Ralphs, Tracy A. “21st Century New World Order Tailor Made for Iowa-class”. United States Naval Fire Support Association Web Site. http://www.usnfsa.com/

Ralphs, Tracy A. and Shawn A. Welch. “Joint Warfare Will Fail Without Joint Weapons Foundation”. United States Naval Fire Support Association Web Site. http://www.usnfsa.com/

Ralphs, Tracy A. “Naval Surface Fire Support: Are Guns Better Than Missiles?”. United States Naval Fire Support Association Web Site. http://www.usnfsa.com/

Ralphs, Tracy A. “Revive Battleships to Fill Gaps of Military Stretched Too Thin”. Navy Times: The Independent Weekly. May 17, 1999 (Reprint)

Selle, Robert W., Cmdr. USNR (Ret). “Comments – In response to ‘The Battleships are Back!’ and ‘Troops Ashore Deserve Better Fire Support’”. Naval Institute Proceedings. December 1998 (Reprint)

Selle, Robert W., Cmdr. USNR (Ret). “Bring Back Battleships”. Navy Times: The Independent Weekly. October 5, 1998 (Reprint)

Stearman, William. “Battleships Give US Psychological, Military Advantage”. United States Naval Fire Support Association Web Site, http://www.usnfsa.com/

Sumrall, Robert. Iowa-class Battleships: Their Design, Weapons, and Equipment. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press: 1988

No

Battleships are obsolete.

[Gig em Aggies]

Battleships are impervious to missiles? News to me and strange since blowing them up has historically worked. Also how far is the effective range of a battleships armaments? Is it a thousand miles? Because if it is it's still being outranged by missile cruisers.

battleships are imprevious to missiles that's a fact, but they're still stupid

No the U.K. put that to rest during the Faulklands War plus the max range of the Iowas big guns is 24 miles and the range of a tomahawk is around 1550 miles while the current US Navy anti ship missile the Harpoon has a max range of 67 miles. Plus there's no way for a WW2 era battleship to survive in a modern naval engagement with drones, fighter jets, and BVR capable missiles.

[Bakery Hill]

battleships are imprevious to missiles that's a fact, but they're still stupid

No the U.K. put that to rest during the Faulklands War plus the max range of the Iowas big guns is 24 miles and the range of a tomahawk is around 1550 miles while the current US Navy anti ship missile the Harpoon has a max range of 67 miles. Plus there's no way for a WW2 era battleship to survive in a modern naval engagement with drones, fighter jets, and BVR capable missiles.

drones are the future

[Risottia]

Only if those railguns fire guided ammunition.

They are already working on it for the 5 inch gun

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otobreda_127/64

No, actually the guided ammo is already DEPLOYED.

[Isilanka]

I love how the immense majority of pro-battleship posts here act as if railguns were an affordable, working, battle-proven and widespread technology.
Which they fucking aren't, and won't be until a few decades. This is not Ace Combat.

[Vassenor]

I love how the immense majority of pro-battleship posts here act as if railguns were an affordable, working, battle-proven and widespread technology.
Which they fucking aren't, and won't be until a few decades. This is not Ace Combat.

And the one time AC wheeled in an actual battleship it was easily sunk by air attack.

[Isilanka]

Hey, I've got a better idea.
Let's re-use old wodden sailing ships and strap missiles to them. They're almost entirely made of wood. Perfect stealth. Minimal cost.

[The New California Republic]

Hey, I've got a better idea.
Let's re-use old wodden sailing ships and strap missiles to them. They're almost entirely made of wood. Perfect stealth. Minimal cost.

Wood doesn't really have much of an effect on the radar signature of an object. Post-war tests involving wooden framed aircraft showed that the radar cross-section isn't substantially affected by wood instead of metal. And the hydrodynamic noise of the hull displacement of the water would still provide a significant acoustic signature for passive sonar.

[Isilanka]

Hey, I've got a better idea.
Let's re-use old wodden sailing ships and strap missiles to them. They're almost entirely made of wood. Perfect stealth. Minimal cost.

Wood doesn't really have much of an effect on the radar signature of an object. Post-war tests involving wooden framed aircraft showed that the radar cross-section isn't substantially affected by wood instead of metal. And the hydrodynamic noise of the hull displacement of the water would still provide a significant acoustic signature for passive sonar.

I should have added /s at the end of my comment. I mean yes it's stupid, but it's a less expensive kind of stupid than bringing back battleships.

(That being said, I wonder what technologically advanced warships would look like in a world without oil nor coal, assuming nuclear energy ain't widespread.).

[Dahon]

Warships made of pykrete (mixed ice and wood husks, if I remember rightly), as was apparently in the works during World War II? If nothing else, the projections are bloody gargantuan. Though I haven't read how they were going to be powered, so...

[The New California Republic]

I wonder what technologically advanced warships would look like in a world without oil nor coal, assuming nuclear energy ain't widespread.

Probably similar to this.

[Dahon]

... those are sails, right? Not jury-rigged honeycombs?

[Isilanka]

... those are sails, right? Not jury-rigged honeycombs?

The link doesn't seem to be working for me but if they are what I think they are, that's essentially the most badass version of sails.

EDIt : not quite what I was thinking about, but they're beautiful sails nonetheless.

[Rost Dreadnorramus]

battleships are imprevious to missiles that's a fact, but they're still stupid

No the U.K. put that to rest during the Faulklands War plus the max range of the Iowas big guns is 24 miles and the range of a tomahawk is around 1550 miles while the current US Navy anti ship missile the Harpoon has a max range of 67 miles. Plus there's no way for a WW2 era battleship to survive in a modern naval engagement with drones, fighter jets, and BVR capable missiles.

Max range of an Iowa when equiped with the shells from the atomic cannon is 50 miles, and the russians were planning on building a battle cruiser that had a range of 70 miles, and you can add rail guns to bring the range up to 200 miles, and it may go up to 300 as rail guns are perfected and upgraded over time, and if you add rocket assistance to the shells like some tanks have then you could boost the range up even higher, heck with the right combination of rockets, shells, guns, power, etc, you could probably get a range close to or equal to the range of some missles, and the fact that shells are much heavier then missles makes them even more devastating.

If you only take the 24 mile range (Yamato could hit 27 miles, and Littorio could hit 29 miles) if you take those ranges that just put 75% of all major cities in battleship gun range,

Here's another thing, people say a battleship would be killed by all of the missles before it even got into gun range, but here's the thing, a battleship can and does carry the same missle defense systems that any other ship carries, if any thing they are larger and could carry more Close in weapon systems, and other defenses, with these and a escort fleet a battleship could set up a sheild from any missles, which means it would give it the ability to move in to use it's guns on the enemy ships, and the fact that battleships are faster then most warships and have more endurance means they could catch up with the enemy fleet, and the fact that the enemy missles can't get through american made defenses, and the enemy ships don't have guns large enough, or armour thick enough, means that a battleship would just melt through them with no problem, and not to mention that battleships also carry missles so their range even with out the guns is still thousands of miles, and the fact they have thicker armour and would be more survivable then the other ships because of the armour and missle defense systems, so battleships, not that useless, they can do every thing that a destroyer or cruiser can do, and more because they have more 10, 5 inch guns, vs a destroyer which only has 1, 5 inch gun, a frigate with only 1, 3 inch gun, and a cruiser with only 2, 5 inch guns, and a battleship not only has 10, 5 inch guns, but also has 9, 16 inch guns which are very powerful.

[The New California Republic]

... those are sails, right? Not jury-rigged honeycombs?

The link doesn't seem to be working for me but if they are what I think they are, that's essentially the most badass version of sails.

EDIt : not quite what I was thinking about, but they're beautiful sails nonetheless.

You mean the image I posted?