A flight of fancy perhaps . . .

Discussion in 'General Military Arms & History Forum' started by Pistolenschutze, Feb 7, 2007.

  1. Pat Hurley

    Pat Hurley Former Guest

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2006
    Messages:
    987
    Location:
    Naples, Florida
    I enthusiastically agree, Pistol! I had a college roomate who ended up being a fire control operator (the guy who aims and shoots the 16' guns) on the Battleship Iowa in the late 80's and early 90's. He used to regale me with stories of the emotional reaction that the Battleships used to have on foreign populations when they would cruise into a foreign port or near shore. The emotions ran the gamut from admiration and awe (if you were friend like, say, the British) or perhaps raw fear and anxiety (if you were foe like, say, Iran or Libya). As a sidebar... my friend was assigned to the rear turret the day that the accidental explosion occured in the number 2 turret. Must have been his lucky day!

    When you consider the deterrence offered and fear it inspired in our enemies, what price can you place on this effect? Or how about the peace of mind and confidence it inspired in our friends that the U.S. had plenty of fire in its belly and one hulluva knock out punch in the form of 16' guns and lots of solid steel.

    I think its baloney to say that the Battleships are obsolete and are too expensive. BALDERDASH!!! I think that we can't afford NOT to have the last two seaworthy models roaming the high seas (one in the Atlantic and one in the Pacific), at least until a super Battleship replacement-like the one you previously described-can be built and launched.

    BRING BACK THE BATTLESHIPS! Let us hoist a mug of grog in honor of our beloved battleships and join the cause for their recommissioning. www.battleship.org.
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2007
  2. The psychological effect of such a ship should certainly not be discounted, Pat. As you said, they are a visible and concrete reminder of the power this country is capable of wielding when it needs to. That factor alone makes them worth having in commission. That much is true even if they need never again fire a shot in anger. Consider as well that a 16" shell is a whale of a lot less expensive, and more destructive, than tomahawk missiles at $1,000.000 a pop! Yet another factor in their favor is their survivability. An Exocet sea skimmer can easily take out most of the relatively thin-hulled ships in today's fleet. Try that against the 12.1 inch battle armor on an Iowa class battleship hull. Might chip the paint, but that's about all! :D
  3. Marlin T

    Marlin T Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,894
    Location:
    New Mexico
    Pistol,

    While your idea is good in thought, it would be a complete total waste of time and money.

    Pictures like this one
    That pod by the way is called a SDV (Seal Delivery Vehicle) which holds a good handfull (?) of Navy Seals times how many SDVs we have. Basiclly one bad ass killing force.

    [​IMG]

    Or one of these SSBNs with all of its missle tubes open 24 in total. That is a possible 24 nukes times how many warheads are in one missle or 154 tomahawks? Times the total amount of SSBNs, SSGNs, SSN (Seawolf) that there are.

    [​IMG]

    Or this display of power

    [​IMG]

    Or any and all of these photos of our US Navy http://www.news.navy.mil/view_galleries.asp

    Are all made impotent and usless by the

    [​IMG]

    and there mind set when it comes to the security and welfair
    of the USA and other countries that strive for external and internal
    PEACE.



    There favorite phrase, "Run Forest run."
    So no matter what kind of awsome power we display, the USA is seen as cowards because of the Democrats and there atitudes.​
  4. :::sigh::: Marlin T, have you no poetry in your soul? :D :p What you say is unquestionably true, and a modern battlewagon will never be built, and for that matter, it probably shouldn't. The U.S. Navy of today has the power to destroy the world twice over with ammo to spare. I don't doubt that in the slightest. Still, it is fun to speculate, and I still think that the psychological factor is important. A battleship says by its very presence, "You want some of this, bud? Go ahead, make my day!" :cool: The most useful weapon in the world is the one that never has to be fired because no one is willing to chance messing with its owner! ;)
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 12, 2007
  5. Marlin T

    Marlin T Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,894
    Location:
    New Mexico
    I still like your idea. Did you check out that link?
    I was going to post some of my photos of the subs, but thought that might be a bad idea.

    Attached Files:

  6. Marlin T

    Marlin T Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,894
    Location:
    New Mexico
    I found this a long time ago. Sorry about the quality, its a photo of a photo

    [​IMG]
  7. Pat Hurley

    Pat Hurley Former Guest

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2006
    Messages:
    987
    Location:
    Naples, Florida
    WARNING! WARNING!!!!!!!

    I am detecting thread creep. Screw the subs... we're talking Battleships, baby!

    Bring on the commies and the democrats (sorry for the redundancy)!
  8. Marlin T

    Marlin T Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,894
    Location:
    New Mexico
    Sorry Pat LOL

    But the power that not only the Navy shows, but the power of all the US Military has and shows all time has been rendered usless by the peace nicks.

    The peace nicks have given this country the image that we are nothing more than a paper tiger to a lot of countries it seems.

    But on the other hand, it sure would be nice to see our weapons displayed in a more blatand way than what we do now. The Agies crusier is a fine example, so are our fleet of subs. When looking at either one of them,, you don't SEE anything more than a sub or cruiser. Very docile looking, unless ya know what they are capable of.

    That was the neat thing about the battle ships of the past, and maybe the future. All of that firepower on display, in a baligerant way even, for all to see. But I'm sure that those peace nicks would call that an unnessary use of psychological warfare:mad:
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2007
  9. 17thfabn

    17thfabn New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2001
    Messages:
    848
    Location:
    North bank of the mighty Ohio River
    Instant cruiser!

    I read about this idea years ago.

    Take a large cargo ship. Have 155mm howitzers on the deck. Use this a fire support ship. Modern container ships could hold a large number of 155mm howitzers.

    Modern 155mm ammunition is devastating:

    1. A standard round is 100 pounds of steel and high explosives.

    2. There are carrier rounds (improved conventinal munitions /icm rounds) that carry submunitions. These can be anti-personnel or dual purpose anti-armor grenandes. This round can also deliver mines, both antipersonnel, and anti-tank. This round is the artillery equivalent of the cluster bomb.

    3. Smoke rounds.

    4. White phosphorus rounds. These can be used for quick smoke, and for incendiary work.

    Such a vessal would not equal a battelship, but could easily equal the firepower of a cruiser. And it could be put together quickly with out the cost of regular manning. When needed a cargo ship could be leased. Artillery battalions would be assigned to man the guns. As the campaign moves inland the arillery battalion goes ashore and continues it's mission.
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2007
  10. clmanges

    clmanges New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    203
    Location:
    NE Ohio
    Sorry, Marlin, but peacenics had nothing to do with ruining our military power, since they are never around where it's being deployed. If the peacenics had any effect at all, then we would not now have the greatest military power on earth, period.
    What has ruined our military power is assymetrical warfare, aka insurgency, or guerilla fighting. We can't use our heavy weapons against civilians who occasionally fire a burst or toss a grenade and then go back to their day jobs as though nothing had happened.
    The whole nature of fighting international conflicts has changed. We're no longer up against large mechanized armies which present easily identified targets, but that's not all. We now see factors such as "netwar," and we see cell phones as bomb triggers. We see that a good portable satellite uplink is likely cheaper than a decent piece of field artillery, and thousands of times more powerful. Your internet connection? Remember that the internet was invented by our military (DARPA), to link military computers, and is now an important part of strategic and tactical considerations.
    Just by way of history, there was an insurgent war right here on the North American continent, a bit over two hundred years back. Remember who won? (Hint: the winners didn't wear red coats.)
    As for parking some big piece of naval hardware within sight of some unfriendly coastline just for show, forget it -- too risky; if it's within easy line of sight, it's an easy target.
    Of course, we need to keep the big stuff handy, but what we should be doing is preparing more small, rapid-deployment units. Counter-insurgency needs to be more like civilian police work than the large mechanized military that we're accustomed to using. And, it sure wouldn't hurt for us to learn the local language while we're at it.
  11. dahermit

    dahermit Former Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    27
    A large surface ship is too vulnerable from submarine attack. Consider the sinking of the Argentine heavy cruiser during the Falkland Islands war and the recent surfacing of an undetected Chinese sub within torpedo distance of an American Carrier. How many eggs should be put into one vulnerable basket?
    Regards,
    dahermit
  12. You make a very valid point, cl. The nature of war changed greatly in the late 20th century, and it continues to change. More and more often conflicts are relatively small, regional, and are insurgencies rather than large scale, national army v. national army contests. Mahan noted long ago that the nation that controls the seaways controls the world, and that is still a valid dictum to this day. Yet today, the need is not so much for large battle groups protecting a few powerful capitol ships, but rather smaller, faster task groups assembled from less expensive (and face it, more expendable) ships armed to provide whatever firepower is appropriate to a particular conflict. I think we will see even more of that in the years to come. It should be noted as well, that the pure warmaking power--even exclusive of nuclear weapons--that may be incorported in even a modern strike destroyer is truly awesome.

Share This Page