Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel
aim
JRH
magpul
geissele
silencerShop
GS
skd
Guns
bravocompany
CA
troy
palmetto
springfield
vortex
fightlite
Franklin
primaryArms
colt
Targets
midwest
RS
delton
brownells

springfield
cmmg
CA
bravocompany
ar15com
RS
primaryArms
LAPG
ar15com
gray
SAS
Pro2A
jt
silencerShop
brownells
geissele
colt
Faxxon
ar15com
palmetto
LAPG
fightlite
THBRD
blackhills
bravocompany
cmmg
tnvc
trijicon
aim
Users Online4399 Online
bravocompany missing Hydra
Page General » General Discussion
Archived [ARCHIVED THREAD] - Should We Build More Battleships? (Page 5 of 7)
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 7
Next Page Arrow Left
Link Posted: 6/11/2019 8:29:25 PM EDT
[#1]
IIRC we didn't build enough battleships to meet the Washington Treaty caps.

Maybe there's a reason.

Link Posted: 6/11/2019 8:35:01 PM EDT
[#2]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Operation Crossroads (you brought it up) was a pair of underwater detonations. Water is a great radiation shield. How would the ships and crew faired from an air burst?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
TBH BB's do pretty well against nukes as well.

Testing post war showed them to be pretty resilient.
The hull ain't worth a shit if the crew is dead.
WW2 proved the hard way that's not the case at all.
A hull may survive a nuclear blast. But if the crew is combat ineffective due to radiation sickness, it ain't worth shit. This wasn't the case prior to 6 August 1945.
If, if, if. Same issues apply to all modern ships as well.

What happens when you nuke ships to see what happens;

"Eight of the major ships and two submarines were towed back to the United States and Hawaii for radiological inspection. Twelve target ships were so lightly contaminated that they were remanned and sailed back to the United States by their crews. " -from Op: Crossroads.

Hell, BB's citadels are so thick, thicker than any modern ship, they'd probably fair better than almost anything else.

The biggest threat to a BB from nuke tests show so far was underwater, and that was more from displacing so much water the ship fell in the hole, and got sunk when the water column came back down on it.
Keep in mind this is the same generation that put soldiers in slit trenches and exposed them to nuclear blasts. Nuclear weapons, both in yield and accuracy, were in their infancy.
So... what? The argument that there MIGHT be some sort of an effect (that would effect all ships fairly equally) for an EXTREME worst case scenario (a ship getting nuked) isn't a good argument against BB's to start with, but following that logic paints a bigger problem than a ship getting hit with a nuke, what the response would be afterwards.

Flaming buckets of rags have destroyed as many subs as nukes have BB's.
You introduced a BBs nuke survivability and now you're dismissing it as an EXTREME worst case scenario?
Make an argument that a US Navy ship getting nuked is NOT an extreme worst case (as well as what happens after) scenario then.

I'm not dismissing it, I'm dismissing the big deal you made about a comment I made in passing, since the big deal you made effects all ships. How do you think they came up with decon procedures for ships in service RIGHT NOW?
Operation Crossroads (you brought it up) was a pair of underwater detonations. Water is a great radiation shield. How would the ships and crew faired from an air burst?
It was NOT a pair of underwater detonations, it was a Airburst, and an underwater detonation.

How would they have fared? As well or better than crews on modern ships. Which is to say, not great 10% of the test animals died in just the blast, but then again there were test animals on deck too, so those losses would be more akin to say, an aircraft carrier during flight ops.
Link Posted: 6/11/2019 8:36:04 PM EDT
[#3]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
IIRC we didn't build enough battleships to meet the Washington Treaty caps.

Maybe there's a reason.
View Quote
It's ok, we've made up for it by building carriers and subs we don't use to their capability.

Things balance out.
Link Posted: 6/11/2019 8:38:25 PM EDT
[#4]
No

V/R
CPO, ret

Link Posted: 6/11/2019 8:42:02 PM EDT
[#5]
but only if the guns are suppressed.
Link Posted: 6/11/2019 8:43:46 PM EDT
[#6]



Link Posted: 6/11/2019 8:49:07 PM EDT
[#7]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
It's ok, we've made up for it by building carriers and subs we don't use to their capability.

Things balance out.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
IIRC we didn't build enough battleships to meet the Washington Treaty caps.

Maybe there's a reason.
It's ok, we've made up for it by building carriers and subs we don't use to their capability.

Things balance out.
How are we not using submarines to their capability?
Link Posted: 6/11/2019 8:53:11 PM EDT
[#8]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
It was NOT a pair of underwater detonations, it was a Airburst, and an underwater detonation.

How would they have fared? As well or better than crews on modern ships. Which is to say, not great 10% of the test animals died in just the blast, but then again there were test animals on deck too, so those losses would be more akin to say, an aircraft carrier during flight ops.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
TBH BB's do pretty well against nukes as well.

Testing post war showed them to be pretty resilient.
The hull ain't worth a shit if the crew is dead.
WW2 proved the hard way that's not the case at all.
A hull may survive a nuclear blast. But if the crew is combat ineffective due to radiation sickness, it ain't worth shit. This wasn't the case prior to 6 August 1945.
If, if, if. Same issues apply to all modern ships as well.

What happens when you nuke ships to see what happens;

"Eight of the major ships and two submarines were towed back to the United States and Hawaii for radiological inspection. Twelve target ships were so lightly contaminated that they were remanned and sailed back to the United States by their crews. " -from Op: Crossroads.

Hell, BB's citadels are so thick, thicker than any modern ship, they'd probably fair better than almost anything else.

The biggest threat to a BB from nuke tests show so far was underwater, and that was more from displacing so much water the ship fell in the hole, and got sunk when the water column came back down on it.
Keep in mind this is the same generation that put soldiers in slit trenches and exposed them to nuclear blasts. Nuclear weapons, both in yield and accuracy, were in their infancy.
So... what? The argument that there MIGHT be some sort of an effect (that would effect all ships fairly equally) for an EXTREME worst case scenario (a ship getting nuked) isn't a good argument against BB's to start with, but following that logic paints a bigger problem than a ship getting hit with a nuke, what the response would be afterwards.

Flaming buckets of rags have destroyed as many subs as nukes have BB's.
You introduced a BBs nuke survivability and now you're dismissing it as an EXTREME worst case scenario?
Make an argument that a US Navy ship getting nuked is NOT an extreme worst case (as well as what happens after) scenario then.

I'm not dismissing it, I'm dismissing the big deal you made about a comment I made in passing, since the big deal you made effects all ships. How do you think they came up with decon procedures for ships in service RIGHT NOW?
Operation Crossroads (you brought it up) was a pair of underwater detonations. Water is a great radiation shield. How would the ships and crew faired from an air burst?
It was NOT a pair of underwater detonations, it was a Airburst, and an underwater detonation.

How would they have fared? As well or better than crews on modern ships. Which is to say, not great 10% of the test animals died in just the blast, but then again there were test animals on deck too, so those losses would be more akin to say, an aircraft carrier during flight ops.
Are you acknowledging that a ships crew would be incapacitated by an air burst?
Link Posted: 6/11/2019 8:55:19 PM EDT
[#9]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Are you acknowledging that a ships crew would be incapacitated by an air burst?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
TBH BB's do pretty well against nukes as well.

Testing post war showed them to be pretty resilient.
The hull ain't worth a shit if the crew is dead.
WW2 proved the hard way that's not the case at all.
A hull may survive a nuclear blast. But if the crew is combat ineffective due to radiation sickness, it ain't worth shit. This wasn't the case prior to 6 August 1945.
If, if, if. Same issues apply to all modern ships as well.

What happens when you nuke ships to see what happens;

"Eight of the major ships and two submarines were towed back to the United States and Hawaii for radiological inspection. Twelve target ships were so lightly contaminated that they were remanned and sailed back to the United States by their crews. " -from Op: Crossroads.

Hell, BB's citadels are so thick, thicker than any modern ship, they'd probably fair better than almost anything else.

The biggest threat to a BB from nuke tests show so far was underwater, and that was more from displacing so much water the ship fell in the hole, and got sunk when the water column came back down on it.
Keep in mind this is the same generation that put soldiers in slit trenches and exposed them to nuclear blasts. Nuclear weapons, both in yield and accuracy, were in their infancy.
So... what? The argument that there MIGHT be some sort of an effect (that would effect all ships fairly equally) for an EXTREME worst case scenario (a ship getting nuked) isn't a good argument against BB's to start with, but following that logic paints a bigger problem than a ship getting hit with a nuke, what the response would be afterwards.

Flaming buckets of rags have destroyed as many subs as nukes have BB's.
You introduced a BBs nuke survivability and now you're dismissing it as an EXTREME worst case scenario?
Make an argument that a US Navy ship getting nuked is NOT an extreme worst case (as well as what happens after) scenario then.

I'm not dismissing it, I'm dismissing the big deal you made about a comment I made in passing, since the big deal you made effects all ships. How do you think they came up with decon procedures for ships in service RIGHT NOW?
Operation Crossroads (you brought it up) was a pair of underwater detonations. Water is a great radiation shield. How would the ships and crew faired from an air burst?
It was NOT a pair of underwater detonations, it was a Airburst, and an underwater detonation.

How would they have fared? As well or better than crews on modern ships. Which is to say, not great 10% of the test animals died in just the blast, but then again there were test animals on deck too, so those losses would be more akin to say, an aircraft carrier during flight ops.
Are you acknowledging that a ships crew would be incapacitated by an air burst?
Do you need me to in order to get what ever validation you're seeking?

You've yet to address how any other modern ship would do under the same scenario to boot.
Link Posted: 6/11/2019 8:57:18 PM EDT
[#10]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
How are we not using submarines to their capability?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
IIRC we didn't build enough battleships to meet the Washington Treaty caps.

Maybe there's a reason.
It's ok, we've made up for it by building carriers and subs we don't use to their capability.

Things balance out.
How are we not using submarines to their capability?
Who have we nuked lately? How many other subs or ships have we torpedoed?  Oh they patrol a lot? So what?

Might as well replace them with AUV's and a few regular subs to tend them and deliver seals and shit.
Link Posted: 6/11/2019 8:58:17 PM EDT
[#11]
no.
Link Posted: 6/11/2019 8:59:35 PM EDT
[#12]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Who have we nuked lately? How many other subs or ships have we torpedoed?  Oh they patrol a lot? So what?

Might as well replace them with AUV's and a few regular subs to tend them and deliver seals and shit.
View Quote
Boomers ensure MAD every single day.

Link Posted: 6/11/2019 9:03:43 PM EDT
[#13]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Boomers ensure MAD every single day.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who have we nuked lately? How many other subs or ships have we torpedoed?  Oh they patrol a lot? So what?

Might as well replace them with AUV's and a few regular subs to tend them and deliver seals and shit.
Boomers ensure MAD every single day.
Oh yea, we're still supposed to be scared of the Russians still right?

We could just as easily make some shipping container launched nukes on the cheap like they thought about and have them float around instead. Vs billions on sending 100 sailors down and 50 couples back up.
Link Posted: 6/11/2019 9:06:11 PM EDT
[#14]
@dport
Link Posted: 6/11/2019 9:07:17 PM EDT
[#15]
If BB's were still employed part time like they were for the 40 years post WW2, they would have been killing people in the 2000's in Basra, and the 2010's in Libya.

Could have had  60 years of smoking fools under their belt, but instead the Navy sold the lie of being able to replace the capability with what ended up being the Zumwalt.

How many bad guys has the Zumwalts smoke yet, especially with their fancy gun that was the selling point of getting rid of the BB's?
Link Posted: 6/11/2019 9:07:18 PM EDT
[#16]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Oh yea, we're still supposed to be scared of the Russians still right?

We could just as easily make some shipping container launched nukes on the cheap like they thought about and have them float around instead. Vs billions on sending 100 sailors down and 50 couples back up.
View Quote
China.

Hard to hide a container ship, more than 1 person will know where it is.

Link Posted: 6/11/2019 9:09:08 PM EDT
[#17]
Soon we should be able to create the Yamoto - Space Battle Ship.

Battleships were more about projecting an image.  The world grew since then, the image is no longer that impressive.  But in the meantime they became great targets.  Unless we can make them impressive and not targets again, it is kind of a wasted effort.

Link Posted: 6/11/2019 9:12:45 PM EDT
[#18]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Soon we should be able to create the Yamoto - Space Battle Ship.

Battleships were more about projecting an image.  The world grew since then, the image is no longer that impressive.  But in the meantime they became great targets.  Unless we can make them impressive and not targets again, it is kind of a wasted effort.
View Quote
We're still blowing up the same goat fuckers we were in the 1700's in the same places, they STOPPED fucking with us when we parked gun boats off their coast.

The world hasn't grown at all in shitty places that hate Americans.
Link Posted: 6/11/2019 9:14:03 PM EDT
[#19]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Who have we nuked lately? How many other subs or ships have we torpedoed?  Oh they patrol a lot? So what?

Might as well replace them with AUV's and a few regular subs to tend them and deliver seals and shit.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
IIRC we didn't build enough battleships to meet the Washington Treaty caps.

Maybe there's a reason.
It's ok, we've made up for it by building carriers and subs we don't use to their capability.

Things balance out.
How are we not using submarines to their capability?
Who have we nuked lately? How many other subs or ships have we torpedoed?  Oh they patrol a lot? So what?

Might as well replace them with AUV's and a few regular subs to tend them and deliver seals and shit.
SSBNs earn their bill by not having to launch. If they launch, they've failed their mission of deterrence. SSNs have launched cruise missiles in support of the GWOT. Never mind the ops/missions that you'll never hear about.
Link Posted: 6/11/2019 9:15:14 PM EDT
[#20]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
China.

Hard to hide a container ship, more than 1 person will know where it is.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh yea, we're still supposed to be scared of the Russians still right?

We could just as easily make some shipping container launched nukes on the cheap like they thought about and have them float around instead. Vs billions on sending 100 sailors down and 50 couples back up.
China.

Hard to hide a container ship, more than 1 person will know where it is.
Can put them on any ship big enough. That's the whole threat of them, blending into other containers and being shuffled around.  Imagine trick fucking bad guys when the MPS ships can send as much heat as any other.
Link Posted: 6/11/2019 9:16:41 PM EDT
[#21]
No
Link Posted: 6/11/2019 9:16:46 PM EDT
[#22]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Do you need me to in order to get what ever validation you're seeking?

You've yet to address how any other modern ship would do under the same scenario to boot.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
TBH BB's do pretty well against nukes as well.

Testing post war showed them to be pretty resilient.
The hull ain't worth a shit if the crew is dead.
WW2 proved the hard way that's not the case at all.
A hull may survive a nuclear blast. But if the crew is combat ineffective due to radiation sickness, it ain't worth shit. This wasn't the case prior to 6 August 1945.
If, if, if. Same issues apply to all modern ships as well.

What happens when you nuke ships to see what happens;

"Eight of the major ships and two submarines were towed back to the United States and Hawaii for radiological inspection. Twelve target ships were so lightly contaminated that they were remanned and sailed back to the United States by their crews. " -from Op: Crossroads.

Hell, BB's citadels are so thick, thicker than any modern ship, they'd probably fair better than almost anything else.

The biggest threat to a BB from nuke tests show so far was underwater, and that was more from displacing so much water the ship fell in the hole, and got sunk when the water column came back down on it.
Keep in mind this is the same generation that put soldiers in slit trenches and exposed them to nuclear blasts. Nuclear weapons, both in yield and accuracy, were in their infancy.
So... what? The argument that there MIGHT be some sort of an effect (that would effect all ships fairly equally) for an EXTREME worst case scenario (a ship getting nuked) isn't a good argument against BB's to start with, but following that logic paints a bigger problem than a ship getting hit with a nuke, what the response would be afterwards.

Flaming buckets of rags have destroyed as many subs as nukes have BB's.
You introduced a BBs nuke survivability and now you're dismissing it as an EXTREME worst case scenario?
Make an argument that a US Navy ship getting nuked is NOT an extreme worst case (as well as what happens after) scenario then.

I'm not dismissing it, I'm dismissing the big deal you made about a comment I made in passing, since the big deal you made effects all ships. How do you think they came up with decon procedures for ships in service RIGHT NOW?
Operation Crossroads (you brought it up) was a pair of underwater detonations. Water is a great radiation shield. How would the ships and crew faired from an air burst?
It was NOT a pair of underwater detonations, it was a Airburst, and an underwater detonation.

How would they have fared? As well or better than crews on modern ships. Which is to say, not great 10% of the test animals died in just the blast, but then again there were test animals on deck too, so those losses would be more akin to say, an aircraft carrier during flight ops.
Are you acknowledging that a ships crew would be incapacitated by an air burst?
Do you need me to in order to get what ever validation you're seeking?

You've yet to address how any other modern ship would do under the same scenario to boot.
In view of the above, justify expenditure on 70 year old designs whose sole benefit is shore bombardment in support of major amphibious landings which we haven't done since Korea.
Link Posted: 6/11/2019 9:17:13 PM EDT
[#23]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
We're still blowing up the same goat fuckers we were in the 1700's in the same places, they STOPPED fucking with us when we parked gun boats off their coast.

The world hasn't grown at all in shitty places that hate Americans.
View Quote
Ok. 2 MLRS parked on a commercial container ship. A fraction of the price of a battleship, a fraction of the crew exposed to risk, better accuracy and range, and it can stay out of LOS with shore AShMs.

Link Posted: 6/11/2019 9:18:06 PM EDT
[#24]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Oh yea, we're still supposed to be scared of the Russians still right?

We could just as easily make some shipping container launched nukes on the cheap like they thought about and have them float around instead. Vs billions on sending 100 sailors down and 50 couples back up.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who have we nuked lately? How many other subs or ships have we torpedoed?  Oh they patrol a lot? So what?

Might as well replace them with AUV's and a few regular subs to tend them and deliver seals and shit.
Boomers ensure MAD every single day.
Oh yea, we're still supposed to be scared of the Russians still right?

We could just as easily make some shipping container launched nukes on the cheap like they thought about and have them float around instead. Vs billions on sending 100 sailors down and 50 couples back up.
The Snickers commercial comes to mind. Eat a crayon. Flavor of your choosing.
Link Posted: 6/11/2019 9:19:15 PM EDT
[#25]
Yamato with her 18in guns. Look how wide it is compared to the Iowa. Yamato's guns had longer maximum range, at 26 miles vs the Iowa's 24 miles.

Link Posted: 6/11/2019 9:19:44 PM EDT
[#26]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
It's ok, we've made up for it by building carriers and subs we don't use to their capability.

Things balance out.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
IIRC we didn't build enough battleships to meet the Washington Treaty caps.

Maybe there's a reason.
It's ok, we've made up for it by building carriers and subs we don't use to their capability.

Things balance out.
Subs seem REALLY important.

I'm very pro Battleship but if you put a gun to my head I'd say build more Seawolfs
Link Posted: 6/11/2019 9:19:52 PM EDT
[#27]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Can put them on any ship big enough. That's the whole threat of them, blending into other containers and being shuffled around.  Imagine trick fucking bad guys when the MPS ships can send as much heat as any other.
View Quote
So every week random longshoremen all over the world will be handling our nukes? Sounds expensive to do safely. I think Columbia class would be cheaper to operate for the next 60 years.

Link Posted: 6/11/2019 9:20:28 PM EDT
[#28]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
SSBNs earn their bill by not having to launch. If they launch, they've failed their mission of deterrence. SSNs have launched cruise missiles in support of the GWOT. Never mind the ops/missions that you'll never hear about.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
IIRC we didn't build enough battleships to meet the Washington Treaty caps.

Maybe there's a reason.
It's ok, we've made up for it by building carriers and subs we don't use to their capability.

Things balance out.
How are we not using submarines to their capability?
Who have we nuked lately? How many other subs or ships have we torpedoed?  Oh they patrol a lot? So what?

Might as well replace them with AUV's and a few regular subs to tend them and deliver seals and shit.
SSBNs earn their bill by not having to launch. If they launch, they've failed their mission of deterrence. SSNs have launched cruise missiles in support of the GWOT. Never mind the ops/missions that you'll never hear about.
In an era of economic, cyber, and cultural war, pretty sure no one REALLY cares about boomers.

So they launched cruise missiles... so... what? So do a lot of ships.  BB's launched them too in GW1, they could have in the GWOT too...

Can an SSN do this;

"USS Missouri successfully launched 27 Tomahawk cruise missiles, bombarded Iraqi defenses in occupied Kuwait with 112 16-inch rounds and then fired another 60 rounds off Khafji before steaming north to near Faylaka Island where the Missouri fired another 133 16-inch rounds as part of an amphibious landing feint. "

I don't see an SSN being able to fire over 300 cruise missiles (since they'd have to make up for the lack of 16" guns).
Link Posted: 6/11/2019 9:22:48 PM EDT
[#29]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
If BB's were still employed part time like they were for the 40 years post WW2, they would have been killing people in the 2000's in Basra, and the 2010's in Libya.

Could have had  60 years of smoking fools under their belt, but instead the Navy sold the lie of being able to replace the capability with what ended up being the Zumwalt.

How many bad guys has the Zumwalts smoke yet, especially with their fancy gun that was the selling point of getting rid of the BB's?
View Quote
As a layman, I agree. Totally. Have a BB roll in under modern American doctrine to just wreck shit. I kinda view them as the artillery of the sea. I realize there's not gonna be broadside naval battles, but they could still wreck shit
Link Posted: 6/11/2019 9:23:16 PM EDT
[#30]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Who have we nuked lately? How many other subs or ships have we torpedoed?  Oh they patrol a lot? So what?

Might as well replace them with AUV's and a few regular subs to tend them and deliver seals and shit.
View Quote
If a Naval war ever breaks out, SSNs are probably going to be the overwhelming leaders in artificial reef production.

Battleships, on the other hand, will fare about as well as the Belgrano did when the Conqueror stuck a torp up her ass.

Link Posted: 6/11/2019 9:25:19 PM EDT
[#31]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
In view of the above, justify expenditure on 70 year old designs whose sole benefit is shore bombardment in support of major amphibious landings which we haven't done since Korea.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
TBH BB's do pretty well against nukes as well.

Testing post war showed them to be pretty resilient.
The hull ain't worth a shit if the crew is dead.
WW2 proved the hard way that's not the case at all.
A hull may survive a nuclear blast. But if the crew is combat ineffective due to radiation sickness, it ain't worth shit. This wasn't the case prior to 6 August 1945.
If, if, if. Same issues apply to all modern ships as well.

What happens when you nuke ships to see what happens;

"Eight of the major ships and two submarines were towed back to the United States and Hawaii for radiological inspection. Twelve target ships were so lightly contaminated that they were remanned and sailed back to the United States by their crews. " -from Op: Crossroads.

Hell, BB's citadels are so thick, thicker than any modern ship, they'd probably fair better than almost anything else.

The biggest threat to a BB from nuke tests show so far was underwater, and that was more from displacing so much water the ship fell in the hole, and got sunk when the water column came back down on it.
Keep in mind this is the same generation that put soldiers in slit trenches and exposed them to nuclear blasts. Nuclear weapons, both in yield and accuracy, were in their infancy.
So... what? The argument that there MIGHT be some sort of an effect (that would effect all ships fairly equally) for an EXTREME worst case scenario (a ship getting nuked) isn't a good argument against BB's to start with, but following that logic paints a bigger problem than a ship getting hit with a nuke, what the response would be afterwards.

Flaming buckets of rags have destroyed as many subs as nukes have BB's.
You introduced a BBs nuke survivability and now you're dismissing it as an EXTREME worst case scenario?
Make an argument that a US Navy ship getting nuked is NOT an extreme worst case (as well as what happens after) scenario then.

I'm not dismissing it, I'm dismissing the big deal you made about a comment I made in passing, since the big deal you made effects all ships. How do you think they came up with decon procedures for ships in service RIGHT NOW?
Operation Crossroads (you brought it up) was a pair of underwater detonations. Water is a great radiation shield. How would the ships and crew faired from an air burst?
It was NOT a pair of underwater detonations, it was a Airburst, and an underwater detonation.

How would they have fared? As well or better than crews on modern ships. Which is to say, not great 10% of the test animals died in just the blast, but then again there were test animals on deck too, so those losses would be more akin to say, an aircraft carrier during flight ops.
Are you acknowledging that a ships crew would be incapacitated by an air burst?
Do you need me to in order to get what ever validation you're seeking?

You've yet to address how any other modern ship would do under the same scenario to boot.
In view of the above, justify expenditure on 70 year old designs whose sole benefit is shore bombardment in support of major amphibious landings which we haven't done since Korea.
They'd get used.

Also, that's not the only benefit, they also make good command and control ships, they have longer legs than a LOT of other ships, they have much more capability for expansion due to economy of scale.

Also, you should bone up on how we use amphibious forces, the Iraq invasion featured using amphibious capability extensively.

Shore bombardment doesn't only get used for landings. Vietnam and Libya used BB's for it.
Link Posted: 6/11/2019 9:26:00 PM EDT
[#32]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
The Snickers commercial comes to mind. Eat a crayon. Flavor of your choosing.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who have we nuked lately? How many other subs or ships have we torpedoed?  Oh they patrol a lot? So what?

Might as well replace them with AUV's and a few regular subs to tend them and deliver seals and shit.
Boomers ensure MAD every single day.
Oh yea, we're still supposed to be scared of the Russians still right?

We could just as easily make some shipping container launched nukes on the cheap like they thought about and have them float around instead. Vs billions on sending 100 sailors down and 50 couples back up.
The Snickers commercial comes to mind. Eat a crayon. Flavor of your choosing.
Maybe you should eat some facts and history instead?
Link Posted: 6/11/2019 9:26:13 PM EDT
[#33]
Total waste of resources, money, and manpower. We got destroyers bigger than WWII heavy cruisers and more firepower. The cost would be so high I doubt Congress would ever pay for one just to sail around the world for a shit show. More bang for the buck to just build a super carrier. At least it can project more firepower and accomplish more missions.

Link Posted: 6/11/2019 9:26:45 PM EDT
[#34]
In because

Link Posted: 6/11/2019 9:26:57 PM EDT
[#35]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
If a Naval war ever breaks out, SSNs are probably going to be the overwhelming leaders in artificial reef production.

Battleships, on the other hand, will fare about as well as the Belgrano did when the Conqueror stuck a torp up her ass.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who have we nuked lately? How many other subs or ships have we torpedoed?  Oh they patrol a lot? So what?

Might as well replace them with AUV's and a few regular subs to tend them and deliver seals and shit.
If a Naval war ever breaks out, SSNs are probably going to be the overwhelming leaders in artificial reef production.

Battleships, on the other hand, will fare about as well as the Belgrano did when the Conqueror stuck a torp up her ass.
With... who?

Meanwhile, we continually engage Islamists in combat near coasts.

Why are you pushing a false dichotomy?
Link Posted: 6/11/2019 9:29:41 PM EDT
[#36]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Subs seem REALLY important.

I'm very pro Battleship but if you put a gun to my head I'd say build more Seawolfs
View Quote
A militarized version of SpaceX's Starship would provide capabilities that a BB could only dream of.

Couple it with a several-thousand satellite imagining and radar constellation and every surface ship on Earth is a sitting target waiting to get reefed.

100x one-tonne tungsten guided reentry kill vehicles anywhere on Earth in under an hour.

This type of thing is going to change the way warfare is fought just as much as the aircraft or missile did.

Link Posted: 6/11/2019 9:31:25 PM EDT
[#37]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Bad ass murica reasoning aside, I read a good article a few years ago that they were VERY helpful to Marine amphibious landings.
View Quote
Once upon a time. We don't do it that way any more. We will never do a Normandy invasion like that ever again.

Link Posted: 6/11/2019 9:33:37 PM EDT
[#38]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
In an era of economic, cyber, and cultural war, pretty sure no one REALLY cares about boomers.

So they launched cruise missiles... so... what? So do a lot of ships.  BB's launched them too in GW1, they could have in the GWOT too...

Can an SSN do this;

"USS Missouri successfully launched 27 Tomahawk cruise missiles, bombarded Iraqi defenses in occupied Kuwait with 112 16-inch rounds and then fired another 60 rounds off Khafji before steaming north to near Faylaka Island where the Missouri fired another 133 16-inch rounds as part of an amphibious landing feint. "

I don't see an SSN being able to fire over 300 cruise missiles (since they'd have to make up for the lack of 16" guns).
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
IIRC we didn't build enough battleships to meet the Washington Treaty caps.

Maybe there's a reason.
It's ok, we've made up for it by building carriers and subs we don't use to their capability.

Things balance out.
How are we not using submarines to their capability?
Who have we nuked lately? How many other subs or ships have we torpedoed?  Oh they patrol a lot? So what?

Might as well replace them with AUV's and a few regular subs to tend them and deliver seals and shit.
SSBNs earn their bill by not having to launch. If they launch, they've failed their mission of deterrence. SSNs have launched cruise missiles in support of the GWOT. Never mind the ops/missions that you'll never hear about.
In an era of economic, cyber, and cultural war, pretty sure no one REALLY cares about boomers.

So they launched cruise missiles... so... what? So do a lot of ships.  BB's launched them too in GW1, they could have in the GWOT too...

Can an SSN do this;

"USS Missouri successfully launched 27 Tomahawk cruise missiles, bombarded Iraqi defenses in occupied Kuwait with 112 16-inch rounds and then fired another 60 rounds off Khafji before steaming north to near Faylaka Island where the Missouri fired another 133 16-inch rounds as part of an amphibious landing feint. "

I don't see an SSN being able to fire over 300 cruise missiles (since they'd have to make up for the lack of 16" guns).
Two SSGNs could, provided there was sufficient inventory. Their crews would be significantly smaller and they require no fuel oil. And no one knows they're there until warheads are landing on foreheads.
Link Posted: 6/11/2019 9:34:07 PM EDT
[#39]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Under my plan the entire ocean is completely covered with Seawolf 2s, if that matters
View Quote
Now there is a plan. Sink those Chinese fake islands.

Link Posted: 6/11/2019 9:35:15 PM EDT
[#40]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
With... who?

Meanwhile, we continually engage Islamists in combat near coasts.

Why are you pushing a false dichotomy?
View Quote
...And we have carriers that can support operations hundreds of miles away vs. battleships that can do a few dozen.

Link Posted: 6/11/2019 9:36:23 PM EDT
[#41]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Which is why God invented the Sea Launched Cruise Missile, and the CSG with organic ASW capability.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
When was the last battleship fired in vain?

Did we shell Iraq in Desert Storm with them?
Yes, iirc a battalion or maybe even a division surrendered to a US battleship in Desert Storm.

You could still see the old shell craters in 2003.

Within 20 miles, nothing delivers the pain like a BB.
Not even a carrier, because the carrier can’t cycle sorties fast enough to keep up with the ROF of a BB.

The problem is, as absolutely tough as a BB is, it is dead before it gets into range.
Which is why God invented the Sea Launched Cruise Missile, and the CSG with organic ASW capability.
What happens when the chicoms or others hack or spoof gps?? Already been done too.

I'm curious

Link Posted: 6/11/2019 9:40:16 PM EDT
[#42]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
They'd get used.

Also, that's not the only benefit, they also make good command and control ships, they have longer legs than a LOT of other ships, they have much more capability for expansion due to economy of scale.

Also, you should bone up on how we use amphibious forces, the Iraq invasion featured using amphibious capability extensively.

Shore bombardment doesn't only get used for landings. Vietnam and Libya used BB's for it.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
TBH BB's do pretty well against nukes as well.

Testing post war showed them to be pretty resilient.
The hull ain't worth a shit if the crew is dead.
WW2 proved the hard way that's not the case at all.
A hull may survive a nuclear blast. But if the crew is combat ineffective due to radiation sickness, it ain't worth shit. This wasn't the case prior to 6 August 1945.
If, if, if. Same issues apply to all modern ships as well.

What happens when you nuke ships to see what happens;

"Eight of the major ships and two submarines were towed back to the United States and Hawaii for radiological inspection. Twelve target ships were so lightly contaminated that they were remanned and sailed back to the United States by their crews. " -from Op: Crossroads.

Hell, BB's citadels are so thick, thicker than any modern ship, they'd probably fair better than almost anything else.

The biggest threat to a BB from nuke tests show so far was underwater, and that was more from displacing so much water the ship fell in the hole, and got sunk when the water column came back down on it.
Keep in mind this is the same generation that put soldiers in slit trenches and exposed them to nuclear blasts. Nuclear weapons, both in yield and accuracy, were in their infancy.
So... what? The argument that there MIGHT be some sort of an effect (that would effect all ships fairly equally) for an EXTREME worst case scenario (a ship getting nuked) isn't a good argument against BB's to start with, but following that logic paints a bigger problem than a ship getting hit with a nuke, what the response would be afterwards.

Flaming buckets of rags have destroyed as many subs as nukes have BB's.
You introduced a BBs nuke survivability and now you're dismissing it as an EXTREME worst case scenario?
Make an argument that a US Navy ship getting nuked is NOT an extreme worst case (as well as what happens after) scenario then.

I'm not dismissing it, I'm dismissing the big deal you made about a comment I made in passing, since the big deal you made effects all ships. How do you think they came up with decon procedures for ships in service RIGHT NOW?
Operation Crossroads (you brought it up) was a pair of underwater detonations. Water is a great radiation shield. How would the ships and crew faired from an air burst?
It was NOT a pair of underwater detonations, it was a Airburst, and an underwater detonation.

How would they have fared? As well or better than crews on modern ships. Which is to say, not great 10% of the test animals died in just the blast, but then again there were test animals on deck too, so those losses would be more akin to say, an aircraft carrier during flight ops.
Are you acknowledging that a ships crew would be incapacitated by an air burst?
Do you need me to in order to get what ever validation you're seeking?

You've yet to address how any other modern ship would do under the same scenario to boot.
In view of the above, justify expenditure on 70 year old designs whose sole benefit is shore bombardment in support of major amphibious landings which we haven't done since Korea.
They'd get used.

Also, that's not the only benefit, they also make good command and control ships, they have longer legs than a LOT of other ships, they have much more capability for expansion due to economy of scale.

Also, you should bone up on how we use amphibious forces, the Iraq invasion featured using amphibious capability extensively.

Shore bombardment doesn't only get used for landings. Vietnam and Libya used BB's for it.
Longer legs than a nuclear powered ship? Good Command and Control ships (Blue Ridge and Mount Whitney) provide office space and comms. No need for 16 inch guns. Was the Iraq amphibious landing on the scale of Inchon? Or the island hopping campaign of the Pacific during WWII?
Link Posted: 6/11/2019 9:48:58 PM EDT
[#43]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
If BB's were still employed part time like they were for the 40 years post WW2, they would have been killing people in the 2000's in Basra, and the 2010's in Libya.

Could have had  60 years of smoking fools under their belt, but instead the Navy sold the lie of being able to replace the capability with what ended up being the Zumwalt.

How many bad guys has the Zumwalts smoke yet, especially with their fancy gun that was the selling point of getting rid of the BB's?
View Quote
The BBs were written off before the Zumwalts were even thought of in fiction books.

Link Posted: 6/11/2019 9:50:10 PM EDT
[#44]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Longer legs than a nuclear powered ship?
No, but how many non-nuclear ships do we have that can go 14,890 miles?

Plus, they all need unreps eventually. Nuclear ships also need new reactors every 20 years. that would buy a LOT of fuel.
Nothing says a new build BB can't be nuclear either, or old ones retrofitted.

If Nuclear was so special why didn't the zumwalt get one?



Good Command and Control ships (Blue Ridge and Mount Whitney) provide office space and comms.
Which BB's have, and can have added

No need for 16 inch guns.
So what? Why not get both?

Was the Iraq amphibious landing on the scale of Inchon? Or the island hopping campaign of the Pacific during WWII?
Does it need to be? Why?
View Quote
Link Posted: 6/11/2019 9:50:52 PM EDT
[#45]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

If a Naval war ever breaks out, SSNs are probably going to be the overwhelming leaders in artificial reef production.

Battleships, on the other hand, will fare about as well as the Belgrano did when the Conqueror stuck a torp up her ass.
View Quote
Exactly!

Link Posted: 6/11/2019 9:51:25 PM EDT
[#46]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
...And we have carriers that can support operations hundreds of miles away vs. battleships that can do a few dozen.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
With... who?

Meanwhile, we continually engage Islamists in combat near coasts.

Why are you pushing a false dichotomy?
...And we have carriers that can support operations hundreds of miles away vs. battleships that can do a few dozen.
Or hundreds.  It's 2019 and there was plenty of new tech in the pipe to extend BB's range even with just the 16" guns. Now we have lasers and rail guns in the pipe.
Link Posted: 6/11/2019 9:51:58 PM EDT
[#47]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
The BBs were written off before the Zumwalts were even thought of in fiction books.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
If BB's were still employed part time like they were for the 40 years post WW2, they would have been killing people in the 2000's in Basra, and the 2010's in Libya.

Could have had  60 years of smoking fools under their belt, but instead the Navy sold the lie of being able to replace the capability with what ended up being the Zumwalt.

How many bad guys has the Zumwalts smoke yet, especially with their fancy gun that was the selling point of getting rid of the BB's?
The BBs were written off before the Zumwalts were even thought of in fiction books.
Not according to congressional mandate, but whatever.
Link Posted: 6/11/2019 9:57:45 PM EDT
[#48]
LOL battleships and arf...

"Battlehships don't work anymore"

shows evidence of battleships working for decades post ww2...

"that doesn't matter!"
Link Posted: 6/11/2019 10:06:35 PM EDT
[#49]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:

Longer legs than a nuclear powered ship?
No, but how many non-nuclear ships do we have that can go 14,890 miles?

Plus, they all need unreps eventually. Nuclear ships also need new reactors every 20 years. that would buy a LOT of fuel.
Nothing says a new build BB can't be nuclear either, or old ones retrofitted.

If Nuclear was so special why didn't the zumwalt get one?



Good Command and Control ships (Blue Ridge and Mount Whitney) provide office space and comms.
Which BB's have, and can have added

No need for 16 inch guns.
So what? Why not get both?

Was the Iraq amphibious landing on the scale of Inchon? Or the island hopping campaign of the Pacific during WWII?
Does it need to be? Why?
Our shipyards are hard pressed to meet nuke construction and maintenance now. And you want to add more. I believe there's a Congressional mandate on what can be nuke powered and what can't.
Link Posted: 6/11/2019 10:10:29 PM EDT
[#50]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Or hundreds.  It's 2019 and there was plenty of new tech in the pipe to extend BB's range even with just the 16" guns. Now we have lasers and rail guns in the pipe.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
With... who?

Meanwhile, we continually engage Islamists in combat near coasts.

Why are you pushing a false dichotomy?
...And we have carriers that can support operations hundreds of miles away vs. battleships that can do a few dozen.
Or hundreds.  It's 2019 and there was plenty of new tech in the pipe to extend BB's range even with just the 16" guns. Now we have lasers and rail guns in the pipe.
The Zumwalt's LRLAP round came out at $800k per round and was cancelled. A damn sight more expensive than your WWII 16 inch round.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 7
Next Page Arrow Left
Archived [ARCHIVED THREAD] - Should We Build More Battleships? (Page 5 of 7)
Page General » General Discussion
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
RS
blackhills
THBRD
CA
gray
silencerShop
cmmg
primaryArms
LAPG
ar15com
colt
Faxxon
geissele
Pro2A
ar15com
jt
brownells
SAS
bravocompany
springfield
ar15com
LAPG
fightlite
palmetto
AR-15 AK-47 Handgun Precision Rifles Armory Training Competitive Shooting General Outdoors Archery Hometown Industry

About AR15.COM

Become an AR15.COM Team Member

AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.

From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.

Stay Connected

AR15.COM Facebook AR15.COM Twitter AR15.COM YouTube AR15.COM Instagram
Pepperjam Verification

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.

Contact Us

Advertising
[email protected]
General
[email protected]

Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.

AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.

Advertising Memberships ARFCOM Shop Gear Deals Virtual Weapon Build Discussion Forums Help Privacy DMCA About Your Privacy Choices California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) Opt-Out Icon   Goat Signal
** When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network and Amazon.
Top Top