1. Battleships are vulnerable to air attacks.

All ships are vulnerable to air attacks and you have to locate them first.

2. Battleships are slow.

Depends on the battleship, the Iowa Class had a 32 knot speed, which isn't slow.

3. Battleship guns are inaccurate.

Depends on the fire control as the Iowas' guns could fire a barrage of shells into a football field, with every shell staying in the field and compared to smaller guns, they're actually more accurate compared to say.... a 127mm gun at longer ranges.

4. Battleships are crew intensive and expensive.

That's the same for every major capital ship, and ironically a Nimitz or a Gerald R. Ford needs more crew overall than the Iowa class battleships do in their current state.

5. Battleships are vulnerable to nuclear attacks.

Tell that to the battleships in the first test (airburst) at Operation Crossroads, Nevada was a mile away and stayed afloat. Though the crew would die if there isn't NBC protection.

The bigger issue here isn't that Battleships share the same issues all ships have, I think it's because they suffer from those same issues on a higher level. Battleships are bigger, and thus require a higher density of CIWS to stop missiles or closing aircraft. While 32 knots isn't slow, that's an indication of less armor and potentially more vulnerabilities below deck. Unless the shells can be manually directed, they can easily be redirected because of changes in atmospheric pressure or wind, though with 9 guns, it certainly increases the chances of a direct hit. It is true battleships suffer the same issues as any capitol ship, though I think the bigger question is how important a role they have in warfare, because historically, they've been treated more like trophies of industrial effort and power, than actual fighting machines, especially after WW2. Carriers can launch aircraft from much further ranges to destroy a target than a Battleship can, unless they have missiles, but there's still a chance the aircraft can deal more damage. And yeah, it's kind of dumb to belittle a ship because it can melt from a nuclear detonation.

To be fair, they weren't that much weaker than any other particular ship against air attacks. It's just that, as capital ships, they have such strategic value that entire campaigns could be waged with the sole goal of knocking them out, with the focused air attacks that would obviously follow.

It's not because they're bigger that they need more air defense, it's just that the every single plane in the theatre is gunning for them, and for good reasons.

Really... the problem with battleships is how much strategic value you get for your buck. For the same price, you could get an entire fleet of destroyers with that much greater coverage, or a carrier with a wing that can hit targets much further away and patrol a larger sector of ocean. They just don't do enough for what they cost, and usually when they have a niche there is a more specialized ship that could do the trick for a lesser price.

Shore bombardment? Just use a monitor, they even have less draft and can get in closer to the shore, and the guns are the same.

So yeah, they're not bad... but they're inefficient.

7305871

7306008

7306020
At this era, bigger ships equal bigger radar signatures. Easier to detect, easier to sink. They really hold no value aside from propaganda purposes and shore bombardment.

Sinking one would be a massive morale boost for the opponent. At least aircraft carriers have strategic values. However, the Kirov-class Battlecruisers and other Cruisers like the Ticonderogas, Slavas, and the proposed Russian Liders (Which are a little smaller than the Kirovs so they might as well be Battlecruisers) come to question on their values. Yes ships like the Kirovs can carry a lot of missiles, but is it worth it to build and maintain them when you can, as Merchant Mariner mentioned, use that same money to build more Destroyers, Frigates, and Corvettes like the Arleigh Burkes, Admiral Gorshkovs, FREMMs, and Iver Huitfeldts that can fire Tomahawks, Kalibrs, Zircons, or NSMs.

I had a debate with an Indian who really wanted India to build a third Aircraft Carrier. Aircraft Carriers, like Battleships, are projections of power but Carriers at this age have more strategic value. A factor is, do you really need one? India's main concerns are Pakistan and China. Yes China has 2 aircraft carriers and are building more, but what about India? China's building up to challenge the presence of the US Navy in the Pacific as well as to intimidate their neighbors, but imagine the symbolic and strategic cost of just one of those carriers going down.

When was the last time a large capital ships like a Battleship or an Aircraft Carrier have been sunk by an enemy. World War II? I argued with him that it would make sense to use the money for the 3rd Aircraft Carrier to build 3 more submarines, diesel submarines to be specific as they're stealthier. India should be focusing on defense, not attacking and expanding.

Brazil and Argentina had Carriers, but for what? It's a huge waste of money. They're not at war and don't have any enemies threatening to invade them. Having a large submarine force would make more sense. I would rather have a fleet of diesel submarines that are hard to detect over an aircraft carrier that sticks out more than Andre the Giant in a crowd of Oompa Loompas.

Remember when Thailand first got the HTMS Chakri Naruebet? The reactions of the Southeast Asian countries was at first, confusion. Then it turned into roaring laughter when we realized the fucking thing was useless.

Back at Indonesia, there are those with visions of grandeur where Indonesia had aircraft carriers and large capital ships like Cruisers. The Navy's Admirals have a different state of mind. Their purpose is to defend, not to expand like they were the Majapahit Empire. The plan is to have a Navy of between 200-300 ships full of the normal gunboats, missile boats, stealth ships, Corvettes, Frigates, 1-2 LHDs (Most likely of Mistral-class), LPDs, LSTs, and a large submarine force consisting of SSK Submarines with Air-Independent Propulsion (AIP) of Upgraded Type 209s, Type 214s, Scorpenes, or better, and a proposition for Midget Submarines of up to 50 in number.

All of that to defend the country and even the odds in the face of a rapidly expanding Indian and Chinese Navies.

So really it's about strategic value and what your country needs. Maybe the United States needs all those Nuclear Aircraft Carriers, but a country like Indonesia would find them useless and a fleet of SSK Submarines would suit their needs better.

Perhaps one day, Battleships will return but with railguns. Who knows, we'll see.

7306008

7306020

7306072

You are all making valid points, I'm just stating what bug me the most.

7305871
The real biggest trouble with the “Are Battleships God or Not” debate is that it just comes down to what is needed. Ships with large guns aren’t really needed at this point in time while ships that can project a presence over a relatively large area are. If the tactical and strategic situations shift it may change. But hey any ship with the right equipment can be deadly. Make sem-guided 16in shells and make them rocket assisted would bump a BB’s range and, in combination with missiles and helicopters, Might give them use as long-range support platforms that can put more attacks on a given area then a wing of carrier-borne aircraft. You say be can’t put nuff CIWS on it? Most BB’s are covered in AA and AAA batteries so just replace some of those. Battleships could be made practical Just no one wants to.

7306179
True, funnily enough an Alaska or a Des Moines would probably be good for fire support.

7306192
Fun Fact: There was actually some consideration to add VLS and other missile systems to the Hawaii. the most completed of the incomplete Alaska Class “Large” cruisers. fell through though due to monetary issues.

7306179

If we're going in the realm of modernizing BB's then with CIWS they might actually turn out viable as a sort of trump card?

Let's face it: most of the surface warfare nowadays is done through missiles. If you were to replace every single AA mount of significant size on a battleship, the amount of protection would basically render it immune to missiles... and any shot attempted against it would be wasting millions in missiles whereas the BB only shoots 20mm shells.

Or 40mm if you're feeling exotic and decided to go for a DARDO CIWS, which would come with the added benefit of wrecking most swarm craft at medium range.

Provided the BB gets good escort against subs, that leaves a fleet with a trump card that can only really be dealt with in a gunnery fight... which the BB is inherently suited to win and that the enemy must confront. Coverage is good, but having a piece on the board you're entirely unable to deal with (except with nukes of course, and even then there's defense against them to an extent) is a very scary prospect.

Though when you look at it from a different perspective... that makes two eras in which BB's are viable: before the rise of the aircraft carrier and after the development of effective defense against missiles... and I'm reasonably certain a CIWS could knock guided bombs out of the sky as well.

7306207
They would be very good trump cards if modernized PROPERLY. The Iowas are already somewhat modernized so they would be the most likely US candidate. And if they want more BBs? Well there is the Texas and Alabama that I know of off the top of my head but I know there are (Probably) others. Plus the BBs could have their boilers replaced with Reactors if someone really wanted to. Besides to convert them to diesel would require removing the Steam turbines, The boilers, and ALL the related equipment. Modernization? Possible. Does anyone want to do it? Not really because they don’t feel that they would be useful. Could they be useful? EXTREMELY so. Semi-Guided Rocket Assisted shells (SGRA shells) would do wonders for their range and accuracy. Mind you they are already pretty accurate. But the only problem? No one wants to develop SGRA shells. if someone did? It would make large guns more useful. might require special equipment or something but they could be useful. The last step is to put more boom in the shells. after all most 16in shells were mostly the steel shell with relatively little explosives. but it could be done.

7306204
I didn't know that.

7306207
The Iowas also got flares equipped and there are PD missiles that out range the 20mm.

7306228
like I mentioned in my above comment. The Iowas could easily be modernized just no one feels the need to do it. A good modernization could make any battleship almost impervious to most conventional attacks.

7306233
Oh.

7306247
yep. could be done just no one wants to do it. prolly because they think that the cost would be too much. But here’s the thing The spend billions on single airplanes. So 40-50 billion for a decent restoration and modernization to 1 trillion+ for the most comprehensive modernization possible? decent deal if anyone wanted to do it. just no one wants to. It’s sad really. A battleship could be an amazing tool to force a favorable engagement. after all the amount of CIWS you could theoretically fit on one is honestly quite insane.

7306252
There's only one navy in the world that would have the resources and be frivolous enough to even think of such an idea and it's the US Navy, and even then that's because they already have surviving BB's to convert. Though in most cases, the world police thing and the ability of a carrier in the realm of force projection would rather see one more supercarrier that they need rather than a single BB in case of an hypothetical slugfest if global powers were to enter conflict.

And most other nations are likely going to want to pull the same game, without having the option to convert old BB's added into the equation. Simply because having a carrier off the shore lets you bypass concerns such as the need to find an airbase to stage bombing the Middle East ('cause where else would you try those high-tech missiles you just bought? those technicals ain't gonna destroy themselves, and that british fella showed an Hilux could be impossible to destroy).

A shame really. I personally find the current naval doctrine a bit bland, but it's most likely going to be the carriers as kings of the ocean for a hundred years more until defensive tech outpaces ordnance and armor becomes worthwhile again.

7306290
yep.

Battleships are weapons of the past for now. Maybe someday that will change.

Well we still have the Russian Kirov "Battlecruiser" or really just a giant ship filled of rockets with a artillery cannon on the back with CWIS mixed in, sadly the odds of the Russians trying to build something like the Kirov ever again is close to 1:1,000,000,000.

7306207
Unfortunately, nobody can actually claim anything is invulnerable. Adding lot's of CIWS will add to the amount of bullets in the air, but unless they're fully autonomous + tracking, they're more dead weight. Also, if somebody fired off enough missiles at you, especially ones capable of communicating with each other, you're gonna get hit. I think the philosophy with "more dakka" is that you're hoping you have more bullets than the enemy have missiles, and if they do? It's kind of a helpless situation where you have a lot more ammunition than it was maybe worth. That's generally why you have support focused ships in fleets, because ships with a mixed array of defense/offense will simply perform all those tasks at lower efficiency, though it does allow for higher individual flexibility.

7306224
Also, it's not just about "nobody wants to do it", those ships are so old it would probably cost more money and time to refit them to today's standards than to simply build a new battleship. Especially in the case of Texas, which has had problems for quite a few years now, and I think they're trying to make it a permanent "floating" Museum, encased in concrete from the waterline. To simply take out it's engines, upgrade it's guns, and give it missiles would make every naval engineer wish they were repairing a barely alive Burke.

7306224
Modernize the Texas? I adore Mighty T but the old girl is over 100 years old and even in her prime was on the verge of obsolescence and she is downright small for a battleship.

Doing those upgrades would basically mean building a whole new ship. Yeah you could switch out her triple-expansion engines for turbines but you would still have to contend with her hull not being ment to go fast

Wow my first post on this site In the five + years on this site, I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here (no pony pun intended) but any way I agree with the most of the argument made above, but to be fair to the argument against being the Iowa's back to service is money , the machinery on the Iowa's is worn out and at the end of its useful life short of a major and expensive overhaul and the other museum battleships have been stripped of all useful equipment short of turning them in to parts bins when the Iowa's were modernized. If the U.S. Navy had infinite amounts of money the battleships would probably still be around for shore bombardment duty. I will admit that as much as I think that most of the the U.S Navy's vessels are more or less glorified soda cans with high tech equipment and that the U.S Navy should go back to vessels that can take damage. IT Will probably never happen short of building a new battleship which opens a whole new can of worms . So as much as I want to see an Iowa class or a modernized South Dakota class sailing around I don't see it happening and I don't see the Aircraft Carrier dependent U.S. Navy changing its ways anytime soon.

7306384
Possible yes. would it be done? no not unless we needed her 14in guns for some reason. I was just naming BBs off the top of my head.

7306702
Historically speaking, if there really is a need for these guns to be recommisioned, it's more likely they would take the guns and turrets off the BB's and put them on a cheaper, lighter tonnage hull to make a monitor. They did that a lot with pre-dreadnoughts in WW1.

In practice, it would be a more effective use of a BB's main battery given the only real use left for them is shore bombardment. Add them as an auxiliary to a fleet in whatever island hopping campaign you're doing, and in most cases you'd be able to bombard an island for far cheaper than a carrier would, and with bigger caliber guns than are currently found on modern ships.

7306763
well the thing about that is the turrets were one single piece from the cap down to the powder magazine at the bottom. so any ship taking it would have to be deep nuff ta hold the entire turret assembly.

7306788
Depends how you look at it. Either a turret could be mounted on a tall barbette to avoid doing any work to the original structure, and monitors like HMS Erebus had really tall barbettes to extend their range.

Otherwise... given how far-fetched what we're discussing is, is it really out of the realm of possibilities to cut the barbette and rework the ammo hoists? Looking at it you could probably fit a modern autoloader in there and shave off a deck or two to fit it onto a smaller hull.

7306916
one deck definitely possible. Two that might be a bit of a stretch. could be possible but I can’t see much more than a deck being taken out.
Could work though. oh well, Big guns could be very useful but no one wants to believe its true in the navy command structure.