Any ship can be sunk by a single submarine. Other then using a nuclear weapon, a battleship can NOT be sunk by a single plane, at least not a battleship that is alert, buttoned up and ready to defend itself. In fact, a battleship could take a few missile hits and stay on station, whereas a carrier or any other naval ship would have to leave the area immediately for repairs.Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
battleships will always be infinitely more bada$$ than subs
If that was even remotely true they'd still be building them. Battleships were probably the most expensive and least effective weapons in military history. They never truly impacted the outcome of any war.
i never said they were superior, just that they were more bada$$
Exactly how bada$$ is a battleship that can be sunk by a single aircraft or a single submarine? They were not badda$$, they were giant targets.
Originally posted by: tranceport
I think the battleship was more of a symbol than a weapon.
I also think they should preserve the battleship names. There are plenty of names to give to our new subs.
Originally posted by: FleshLight
Can't they just name it after current presidents like GWB?
Originally posted by: nutxo
Originally posted by: jdoggg12
Battleships are badass, yes... but a submarine is infinitely more lethal, closely followed by a carrier. Big guns are no match for high-powered smart missiles and attack jets.
But... nothing on the water really come close to the coolness of battleship cannons...
http://content.answers.com/main/content...x-BB61_USS_Iowa_BB61_broadside_USN.jpg
one of my favorite wallpapers of all time
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7_Iowa_pic.jpg
Aside from tactical nukes a sub doesnt even come close in the potential for destruction a carrier has . Commanders of aircraft carriers are considered some of the most powerful men on the planet.
edit. BTW. Ive seen the Missouri fire her guns from the deck of the Ranger.
Originally posted by: tangent1138
wasn't there a story a couple weeks back about them working on rail gun weapon system to replace the deck guns on battleships?
it had a much longer range and the added benefit that the projectiles didn't need explosives-- their kinetic energy was so great that they could destroy a building from the force.
Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
Originally posted by: nutxo
Originally posted by: jdoggg12
Battleships are badass, yes... but a submarine is infinitely more lethal, closely followed by a carrier. Big guns are no match for high-powered smart missiles and attack jets.
But... nothing on the water really come close to the coolness of battleship cannons...
http://content.answers.com/main/content...x-BB61_USS_Iowa_BB61_broadside_USN.jpg
one of my favorite wallpapers of all time
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7_Iowa_pic.jpg
Aside from tactical nukes a sub doesnt even come close in the potential for destruction a carrier has . Commanders of aircraft carriers are considered some of the most powerful men on the planet.
edit. BTW. Ive seen the Missouri fire her guns from the deck of the Ranger.
Probably pointing out the obvious ...
Subs pack plenty of fire power ... but their strength is stealth. Comparing firepower is pointless. It's like comparing a body builder to a sniper.
Originally posted by: nutxo
Originally posted by: jdoggg12
Battleships are badass, yes... but a submarine is infinitely more lethal, closely followed by a carrier. Big guns are no match for high-powered smart missiles and attack jets.
But... nothing on the water really come close to the coolness of battleship cannons...
http://content.answers.com/main/content...x-BB61_USS_Iowa_BB61_broadside_USN.jpg
one of my favorite wallpapers of all time
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7_Iowa_pic.jpg
Aside from tactical nukes a sub doesnt even come close in the potential for destruction a carrier has . Commanders of aircraft carriers are considered some of the most powerful men on the planet.
edit. BTW. Ive seen the Missouri fire her guns from the deck of the Ranger.
Originally posted by: MSUEngineer
Originally posted by: nutxo
Originally posted by: jdoggg12
Battleships are badass, yes... but a submarine is infinitely more lethal, closely followed by a carrier. Big guns are no match for high-powered smart missiles and attack jets.
But... nothing on the water really come close to the coolness of battleship cannons...
http://content.answers.com/main/content...x-BB61_USS_Iowa_BB61_broadside_USN.jpg
one of my favorite wallpapers of all time
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7_Iowa_pic.jpg
Aside from tactical nukes a sub doesnt even come close in the potential for destruction a carrier has . Commanders of aircraft carriers are considered some of the most powerful men on the planet.
edit. BTW. Ive seen the Missouri fire her guns from the deck of the Ranger.
The Ohio class subs carry 20 ICBMs that have the capacity of almost 200 thermonuclear warheads that can strike any target on the planet. It alone could wipe out an entire continent!! Any other ship pales in comparison to the amount of firepower these subs carry.
Originally posted by: MSUEngineer
The Ohio class subs carry 20 ICBMs that have the capacity of almost 200 thermonuclear warheads that can strike any target on the planet. It alone could wipe out an entire continent!! Any other ship pales in comparison to the amount of firepower these subs carry.
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: MSUEngineer
The Ohio class subs carry 20 ICBMs that have the capacity of almost 200 thermonuclear warheads that can strike any target on the planet. It alone could wipe out an entire continent!! Any other ship pales in comparison to the amount of firepower these subs carry.
Sure, it has more potential firepower, but I think reality has taught us that for all intents and purposes, they're only useful as a deterrent. They're expensive and most likely never going to be used.
That's why they're taking the nukes out of the Ohio subs and turning them into cruise missile carriers. It's better to have equipment that you can use in an actual engagement.
Read it again. Biz was hit by more like 3-400 shells.Originally posted by: RyanSengara
Here's an effective battleship:
Bismarck
Hit by 2500 british shells, only 4 shots penetrated the 2nd layer of armour and only sank because the Germans scuttled her.
Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Read it again. Biz was hit by more like 3-400 shells.Originally posted by: RyanSengara
Here's an effective battleship:
Bismarck
Hit by 2500 british shells, only 4 shots penetrated the 2nd layer of armour and only sank because the Germans scuttled her.
The reason there were so few armor penetrations is, the British ships were too close. Most BB's have an "immune zone", in which their side armor can't be penetrated by other BB shells. The Brits were faced with a catch-22 situation: Sit out at long range, where accuracy wasn't as good, or close in, get hits, but less penetration. They chose the latter.
And you can believe that Bismarck was sunk by scuttling if you want, but the fact of the matter is that she was well on her way to the bottom, whether the Germans scuttled, or whether the British torpedoed her. (which they did) Biz was doomed, and if everyone just stopped what they were doing and abandoned ship without scuttling, she would have sunk anyway.
Bismarck was finished as a fighting unit about 15-20 minutes into the battle....her main, glaring weakness was pitiful turret armor. HMS Rodney silenced her main battery very quickly.
All the other British shells were really just harassment for the Biz's crew....the only two ships on the scene that could really do any damage were King George V and Rodney.
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Read it again. Biz was hit by more like 3-400 shells.Originally posted by: RyanSengara
Here's an effective battleship:
Bismarck
Hit by 2500 british shells, only 4 shots penetrated the 2nd layer of armour and only sank because the Germans scuttled her.
The reason there were so few armor penetrations is, the British ships were too close. Most BB's have an "immune zone", in which their side armor can't be penetrated by other BB shells. The Brits were faced with a catch-22 situation: Sit out at long range, where accuracy wasn't as good, or close in, get hits, but less penetration. They chose the latter.
And you can believe that Bismarck was sunk by scuttling if you want, but the fact of the matter is that she was well on her way to the bottom, whether the Germans scuttled, or whether the British torpedoed her. (which they did) Biz was doomed, and if everyone just stopped what they were doing and abandoned ship without scuttling, she would have sunk anyway.
Bismarck was finished as a fighting unit about 15-20 minutes into the battle....her main, glaring weakness was pitiful turret armor. HMS Rodney silenced her main battery very quickly.
All the other British shells were really just harassment for the Biz's crew....the only two ships on the scene that could really do any damage were King George V and Rodney.
IIRC, her fire directors were knocked out first making the guns basically useless.
It has been proven that her main armor belt was basically intact and the torpedo protection was pretty effective. The Bismark was doomed by a number of factors and bad luck. Lütjens seriously messed up by deciding not to top off his fuel tanks at Bergen prior to making the run into the Atlantic.
I recall no such a thing being determined. Link?Originally posted by: RyanSengara
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Read it again. Biz was hit by more like 3-400 shells.Originally posted by: RyanSengara
Here's an effective battleship:
Bismarck
Hit by 2500 british shells, only 4 shots penetrated the 2nd layer of armour and only sank because the Germans scuttled her.
The reason there were so few armor penetrations is, the British ships were too close. Most BB's have an "immune zone", in which their side armor can't be penetrated by other BB shells. The Brits were faced with a catch-22 situation: Sit out at long range, where accuracy wasn't as good, or close in, get hits, but less penetration. They chose the latter.
And you can believe that Bismarck was sunk by scuttling if you want, but the fact of the matter is that she was well on her way to the bottom, whether the Germans scuttled, or whether the British torpedoed her. (which they did) Biz was doomed, and if everyone just stopped what they were doing and abandoned ship without scuttling, she would have sunk anyway.
Bismarck was finished as a fighting unit about 15-20 minutes into the battle....her main, glaring weakness was pitiful turret armor. HMS Rodney silenced her main battery very quickly.
All the other British shells were really just harassment for the Biz's crew....the only two ships on the scene that could really do any damage were King George V and Rodney.
IIRC, her fire directors were knocked out first making the guns basically useless.
It has been proven that her main armor belt was basically intact and the torpedo protection was pretty effective. The Bismark was doomed by a number of factors and bad luck. Lütjens seriously messed up by deciding not to top off his fuel tanks at Bergen prior to making the run into the Atlantic.
Not to mention the fact that when an American expedition searched the Bismarck after finding her a few years ago they found that the ship would have floated for another 24 hours and most likely could have been captured, except for the fact that the Germans scuttled her.
Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Then you need to read up on your battleship history. Battleships played a huge part in WWI, in the Jap/Russian war, WWII, even Korea and Vietnam.Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
battleships will always be infinitely more bada$$ than subs
If that was even remotely true they'd still be building them. Battleships were probably the most expensive and least effective weapons in military history. They never truly impacted the outcome of any war.
Look at the vast amount of British naval resources just one battleship, the Bismarck, tied up.
Same with the German pocket battleship, the Graf Spee.
The Bismarck's sister ship, Tirpitz, impacted shipping until nearly the end of the war, just by existing.
Look up Convoy PQ 17. 25 out of 36 ships lost, simply because intelligence reported the Tirpitz was hunting them, so the convoy scattered and the U-boats slaughtered them.
Tirpitz never even left port.
The loss of the US battleline at Pearl Harbor forced the US to fight a carrier war. This would not have been the US Navy's first choice to battle the Japs if all the BB's were still intact.
Korea...only the USS Missouri was still in service at the start of the war. The US Navy quickly recommissioned the rest of the Iowa class when they saw how effective Missouri was.
Vietnam...USS New Jersey was quickly recommissioned and spent a bit of time off the coast of Vietnam. Whenever the VC heard the Jersey was nearby, they would evactuate the entire area in range of her guns.
They did no such thing when carriers were nearby.
In fact, they feared the New Jersey so much that one of the conditions for them to start negotiations was that she be removed from the area.
Prior to WWI, nations with battleships would often send them to "show the flag" off the coast of hotspots of conflict, etc. Often just the arrival of a few BB's was enough to calm everyone down and avoid war or stop uprisings.
The Battleship Arms Race leading up to WWI was one of the contributing factors to the start of the war.
Our troops could still use some battleship support today. There's basically nothing that can resist their fire, and only a couple of countries have any missiles that could severely damage a BB....and that's if the missile could even get through. And Battleships are still some of the fastest, and maybe even THE fastest ships in the fleet.
The Navy is wasting time building the next version of the modern day BB, which probably won't be ready for another 10-15 years, while they could have 4 kick-ass BB's in service right now.
What would North Korea have thought a year or so ago if Bush could have sent a couple of BB's to patrol offshore? Something like 70% of NK's military targets are in range of the 16 inchers.
Battleships intimidate. They inspire awe. They are beautiful.
When the USS Missouri was recommissioned in the 80's, over 10,000 people turned out.
On her shakedown cruise, and basically a world tour, people in foreign countries regularly jammed the shoreline just to get a glimpse of a real battleship.
Contrast this with our supercarriers visiting, with minimal attendance by foreign gawkers.
I can keep on all night about the effectiveness of battleships, but you get the idea.
screw you OP, submarines are awesome and can kick any stupid battleship's ass any day
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
I would also disagree with your assessment of the US situation. The war in the Pacific was the war of the future. Large battles were determined by aircraft carriers, not battleships. Smaller battles, such as those that occurred off the coast of Guadalcanal, were fought by smaller, more maneuverable ships. Battleships did play a key role as floating artillery batteries, but their combat role was limited for a reason - battleships were antiques by World War II and the Pacific campaign demonstrated that convincingly.
There were several smaller actions....Jutland was just the only time the entire fleets of both sides fought.Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
a "huge part" of World War II? I think you're exaggerating. Let's roll through your examples.
Despite being the best-known German warships, the Tirpitz and Bismarck contributed almost nothing to the German war effort. Each was an enormous undertaking and consumed valuable resources that could have gone elsewhere.
The first (and last) sortie by the Bismarck was nothing short of a disaster. Despite breaking out of the English blockade in the straight of Denmark, the Bismarck failed to accomplish much. She was hunted relentlessly by the Royal Navy, and sunk only days after her first escape. Although she sent the pride of the RN, the HMS Hood, it was nothing more than a Pyhrric victory.
The Tirpitz had an even less illustrious career. Despite being among the most powerful and modern battleships in existence, Hitler had lost his faith in surface navies and ordered her to sit in Norway. It is true she tied down British resources, who were (rightly so) fearful of the destruction she could reign down on the northern convoys. Her impact on the war, however, is minute compared to the U-boat campaign. By tying down Royal Navy ships, the Tirpitz may have indirectly contributed to both the sinking of more allied convoy ships (as the OP pointed out) and may have saved several U-boats (by tying down ships that would otherwise be on anti-convoy duty). Still, this contribution is insignificant when put in perspective with the scale of the war.
The Bismarck and Tirpitz certainly were among the most well-known German ships, but they were not effective in the slightest. The Bismarck's first and last sortie lsated under a week and resulted in her sinking. In that time she did manage to sink the HMS Hood, but in no way was that compensation for the loss of one of the world's most modern ships.
I would also disagree with your assessment of the US situation. The war in the Pacific was the war of the future. Large battles were determined by aircraft carriers, not battleships. Smaller battles, such as those that occurred off the coast of Guadalcanal, were fought by smaller, more maneuverable ships. Battleships did play a key role as floating artillery batteries, but their combat role was limited for a reason - battleships were antiques by World War II and the Pacific campaign demonstrated that convincingly.
Just quickly I'd also like to touch on your argument about World War I. Once again, you are at least partially correct. Growing concerns about naval supremacy and arms races placed tensions on a divided continent with a broken alliance system, but battleships were not the tipping point. Without them, WWI would still have unfolded. Remember, even during the Great War, battleships only squared off against one another in a meaningful way once - at Jutland.