i am wondering how come every navy in the world hate to have battleships? i know that the sinking of yamato tells how vulnerable a battleship is when not having any sort of air cover. but yet, it takes more than 300 planes to actually sink the yamato without air cover (but the few escorts in fact eat up many of the hits)
it's so true that a battleship could not even get a carrier into the firing range of their guns. While Carriers can launch their planes against the Battleship when it's out of range.
First of all the worries about Battleship is about the protection, a sinking of a battleship would be a great lost.
Planes is one of the greatest threat of ships, with modern SAM and AA fire could possibly limit the action of other Planes if the battleship have some air cover, i don't think a modern jet is immune from these stuffs...
and with modern technology a Battleship could use even better armour to protect itself, probably a better damage control too.
And i think the thought of "big-guns are obsolete" is i think, is quite true, big guns are really limited in range.
I think Battleships could be armed with the modern Surface to Surface missiles, (the USS Iowa?) , which have great range (they are above 100km?), could make battleships a fearsome ship again, imagine a salvo of Anti ship missiles flying to other ships...i would expect a boom.
a Battleship might be too big but i rarely see ships bigger than a heavy cruiser today.
But those pesky Bunker Busters and Cruise Missiles and lets not forget the Nuke would surely pwn it. And subs with their Nukes can also pwn it. Blame the missiles and jet planes.
Big A;3923536But those pesky Bunker Busters and Cruise Missiles and lets not forget the Nuke would surely pwn it. And subs with their Nukes can also pwn it. Blame the missiles and jet planes.
a nuke can kill anything, it's unfair to say a nuke would kill a battleship.
The idea of a cruise missle gun ship has been around for a while. I belive it was brought up around the turn of the century by the U.S. Marines for fire support, but I don't know what happened to it. There's a good peice on it in Tom Clancy's 'Marine'
JohnWalker;3923576The idea of a cruise missle gun ship has been around for a while. I belive it was brought up around the turn of the century by the U.S. Marines for fire support, but I don't know what happened to it. There's a good peice on it in Tom Clancy's 'Marine'
it's sad... a modern battleship could dominate the battlefield unless there are bunch of enemy planes? right? i don't see how modern destroyers can kill a battleship armed with missiles....unless the Battleship is "made in China":uhm:
Oh easy. A few exocet or harpoons and the battleship is glug glug
aka Killed in First Minute
21st October 2005
Missiles have such long ranges that the guns on a battleship are irrelevant. That just leaves the heavier armor. Battleships are tougher, but they don't have so much of an advantage that would justify their enormous expense. The massive guns are of some use in shore bombardment (making them more like modern day monitors) but again this is not enough to justify the expense. Even Reagan and GWB never tried to build battleships.
Ah, modern warfare sucks. Now it depends do your country have good anti-ship missiles or great jet planes. WWII was the end of the "great" WARFARE where it was mostly man against man. And machines weren't so that you didn't have a chance if you didn't have good Infra-red technology.
As some people said, battleships disapeared because of missiles. Not only because they are very vulnerable to them, but because those can be carried by most ships or plane. Before guided missiles came in existance, only the largest ships could carry the deadliest naval weapons of the time : 14" and larger guns. Now a mere frigate can sink anything if its equipped with good ASM and countermeasures. To top it off, smaller ships are more stealthy than large, massive 60 000 ton warships, and they require less maintenance.
The closest thing there is to a modern battleship is the Kirov (this ship is often called a battlecruiser). The large nuclear propelled Russian ship is equiped with a monstruous arsenal of missiles, its a kind of enlarged version of other missile cruisers/destroyers. It is about 25000ton heavy, so its still much lighter than WW2 era behemots.
Even Reagan and GWB never tried to build battleships.
Well to be fair, Reagan recommissioned a bunch of old Iowa battleships.
Battleships are an environmental distaster, do you know how much oil it would take to keep them running? Plus all the men it would take, plus they all have needs; food, water, supplies.....1,000's of pounds of it....everyday.... And for what? What can a battleship do that a plane or smaller ship can not? And planes will get it done at a much faster rate, and take up alot less resources..... Plus the resources needed to maintain such a bohemith, dry docks would be full for months/years at a time to make sure such a large ship is in top condition..... Again for what? Shore bombardments? Thats about the only thing I see these things can do better then your average modern navy, but what if your enemy isnt near the sea? And missiles, you fit a Battleship with nothing but missiles....what does it become? Your essentially giving it the same task as the smaller ships, yet with a slightly larger loadout and a HUGE increase in resource consumption.... Battleships arent needed in this day and age, and would be nothing buy a money and resource pit....