| Zephyr Net http://jkpeterson.net/forum/ |
|
| Did the U.S. Navy make a mistake in retiring the battleship? http://jkpeterson.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=928 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | da big man! [ Tue Dec 02, 2003 22:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Did the U.S. Navy make a mistake in retiring the battleship? |
What do you think |
|
| Author: | KAPTOR [ Wed Dec 03, 2003 00:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
depends on how many beaches we're gonna storm. I personally dont miss them. |
|
| Author: | da big man! [ Wed Dec 03, 2003 00:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think it's just like how they retired the F-111- For no reason. |
|
| Author: | KAPTOR [ Wed Dec 03, 2003 00:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
ships are expensive to operate and maitain, the BBs have no mission anymore. |
|
| Author: | da big man! [ Wed Dec 03, 2003 00:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
They could still provide intense artillery barrages on enemy positions. They could carry cruise missiles too. Who's to say it has no mission anymore? No one knows what the military might have to face tommorow. |
|
| Author: | KAPTOR [ Wed Dec 03, 2003 01:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
anything can (and does nearly) carry cruise missles. BB guns go about 20 miles, how close in are you going to drag the "big guns" to the shore? Anti-ship cruise missles wont sink a BB (wont sink our big CVs either) but they will sure ruin its day and most likely get a "mission kill" and for what? lotza noize and pretty pictures. If you wanna destroy someones harbor facilities they WILL do that, but we generally need those facilities a day or two after the fighting starts cause the baddies are on the run, the USMC is in effect and rolling inland and need logistic support. We can "provide intense artillery barrages on enemy positions" with a few smart weapons. We dont need to mess up stuff we're gonna need later. BBs are expensive and pointless. |
|
| Author: | da big man! [ Thu Dec 04, 2003 16:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
FAS says that their big guns were able to reach 26 miles, about as long as the standard U.S. artillery. And that kind of firepower would be very valuable if U.S. forces ever have to do an amphibious landing again. And it could also be valuable for shelling nearby enemy fleets. |
|
| Author: | KAPTOR [ Thu Dec 04, 2003 19:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
lol |
|
| Author: | Centurian57_369th [ Fri Dec 05, 2003 19:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Nothing I love more than a full broadside from the Missouri. |
|
| Author: | CAG Hotshot [ Mon Dec 08, 2003 17:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Iowa suffered from a destroyed turret after the accidental explosion... New Jersey had a massive crack through her midships across her entire armor plate from the continual shock of firing the weapons, Missouri's boilers were worn out and need to be retubed... add to this that ALL of the 16inch propellent was well past its expiration date and was unstable (this is the reason Iowa's turret exploded)... 80% of the cannons were 'shot out' and need to be replaced... The onboard electronics suffered shock damage whenever more then one 16 inch gun was fired at a time... The number of crew needed to maintain them, coupled with the costs also killed them... The Navy dimply did not have the number of bodies needed any longer to man them... Couple with this that the Navy now has precision guided munitions coming onboard for her standard cannons that have a range in excess of 100 miles ashore... Plus the RCS of the battleships was simply to HUGE to hide... They are to big of a terget and still susceptible to submarine attack or even light craft torpedo strikes... Either way they had out lived thier useful lives... What never should of been done, was the massive $$ spent on their upgrade in the 1980s, money which could of been better spent on other ships and aircraft programs... CAG out... |
|
| Author: | da big man! [ Wed Dec 10, 2003 17:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The BB has always been a staple of Naval Power. Even back in the days when the Brits owned the seas. The battleship was always the most feared weapon on the seas. And I don't think that it outlived its usefullness. It could still barrage enemy positions on beach areas (26 mile range on the gun), and it could carry cruise missiles. The BB is/was a nice compliment to the Aircraft Carrier, it could protect it from enemy fleets or ships that get too close. Not to mention that it was armed with 20mm Phalanx CIWS, as well as 5-inch / 38 caliber guns. It offered protection from cruise missiles as well. |
|
| Author: | KAPTOR [ Thu Dec 11, 2003 00:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
umm... lol ... what would a BB protect a carrier from? Tico and others will do anything BB can do other than the gunfire(long rang antiship missles and air defence) what fleet would get within 26 miles of a BB and more importantly WHY WOULD WE LET THEM GET THAT CLOSE lol. Airstrikes would make that enemy fleet turn tail or wish it had in a very short time. Quote: The battleship was always the most feared weapon on the seas WAS being the operative word in that sentance. If the BB is so great for today why aint nobody building them now? |
|
| Author: | da big man! [ Thu Dec 11, 2003 12:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I seem to recall the Israelis attacking the USS Liberty at close range with PT boats. Small boats like that would probably be able to screen through and attack. And it had the PHALANX cannon, it could provide cruise missile defense to the fleet. |
|
| Author: | CAG Hotshot [ Thu Dec 11, 2003 12:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Big, The BBs should of stayed retired after Vietnam. Their weapons were out dated and hazardous to the crew to even use. The money (Billions by the way) spent on their reactavitation could have provided us an additional Nimitz class carrier, which do you think would be more effective in todays modern environment? And a BB could not protect a modern carrier, it cant even keep up... It has no anti air weapons other then phallanz widh is a last ditch weapon that can only protect the ship it is mounted on and has never (that I know of)been proven to even work in a combat situation. Add to the fact that the Tomahawk launchers were bolt on improvements and were easily removed... To be carried by more effective ships... |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|