[Liberator]

 

The Missouri is arguably the most famous battleship of WW2.  It was on her forward deck, IIRC, that the treaty officially ending the conflict between the US and Japan was signed.  As a side note, the Alabama was alongside the Missouri at the signing ceremony.

[General Battuta]

The Missouri was in fact in MGS4, yes.

[Scotty]

The fact that the Yamato could be taken out by WWII bombers and torpedo planes

Yes.  It was destroyed by several dozen 500 lb bombs and moving mines, which happened to be launched/dropped from planes.  It seems natural for a WWII destroyer to be taken out by several dozen aircraft ALMOST 400 AIRCRAFT, doesn't it?  A ship with no AA missiles, which was also quite devoid of air cover during that instance.  When it was finally taken out of action, it had sustained 17 hits, and only sank because its magazines went up.

[NGTM-1R]

The fact that the Yamato could be taken out by WWII bombers and torpedo planes suggests that Missouri is going to end up just the same way in the face of a saturation ASM attack. The same is probably true of today's carriers, mind, but at least they don't have to get so close.

Faulty comparison. Yamato and Musashi proved themselves effectively immune to thousand-pound bomb hits as far as degrading their ability to move and fire main battery went. Without torpedo planes, it would have taken hundreds to stop them. Since ASMs Do Not Work That Way, and in many cases scoring an ASM hit on the superstructure would be a result of the missile malfunctioning and attacking higher than intended (with the exception of the Harpoon family's popup manuver, intended to break the ship's back, anti-ship missiles are uniformly designed to impact close to the waterline because you sink ships with holes that let water in), they remain vunerable, but not that vunerable.

The problem with them is that they are extremely expensive to operate and man.

[Thaeris]

Furthermore, ship-based artillery is typically a thing of the past nowadays. Railguns/coilguns, if or when they overcome their technical difficulties, may change that, but we'll have to wait. Conventional artillery... if you can call a 16in cannon conventional, can only shoot so far. This makes a battleship good for a limited amount of roles.

If you're going to make amphibious assaults, operating artillery is probably more cost-effective than shooting missiles. And you can probably carry more shells than missiles... but that depends on the ship. But since we're talking about battleships... Conventional shells certainly don't have the pinpoint accuracy of a missile strike, but they're unbeatable for volume fire. The Iowa-Class boats were actually used for this role several times, if I'm not mistaken. Keep in mind, however, that such engagements are very few on the modern war front.

Combine long-range railguns and a massive missile battery, though, and you might have something. Hard to justify the cost, though.

[General Battuta]

The fact that the Yamato could be taken out by WWII bombers and torpedo planes

Yes.  It was destroyed by several dozen 500 lb bombs and moving mines, which happened to be launched/dropped from planes.  It seems natural for a WWII destroyer to be taken out by several dozen aircraft ALMOST 400 AIRCRAFT, doesn't it?  A ship with no AA missiles, which was also quite devoid of air cover during that instance.  When it was finally taken out of action, it had sustained 17 hits, and only sank because its magazines went up.

17 hits is laughable compared to the number of missiles involved in, say, Soviet strategies, or in wargames against a simulated Iran. Moreover the number was 19 (at least according to one source?) and while the 12 bomb hits were relevant only the 7 torpedoes were real killers. It sank not because of the magazines (though those were the final blow) but because of flooding.

It was escorted by a number of ships, most of which were lost.

Don't start flipping out like you did on the CBT boards.

The fact that the Yamato could be taken out by WWII bombers and torpedo planes suggests that Missouri is going to end up just the same way in the face of a saturation ASM attack. The same is probably true of today's carriers, mind, but at least they don't have to get so close.

Faulty comparison. Yamato and Musashi proved themselves effectively immune to thousand-pound bomb hits as far as degrading their ability to move and fire main battery went. Without torpedo planes, it would have taken hundreds to stop them. Since ASMs Do Not Work That Way, and in many cases scoring an ASM hit on the superstructure would be a result of the missile malfunctioning and attacking higher than intended (with the exception of the Harpoon family's popup manuver, intended to break the ship's back, anti-ship missiles are uniformly designed to impact close to the waterline because you sink ships with holes that let water in), they remain vunerable, but not that vunerable.

The problem with them is that they are extremely expensive to operate and man.

Yamato was destroyed by torpedo hits just below the waterline at the bow and stern. This is not a difficult kind of damage to replicate. Moreover, in the modern naval environment, Missouri - or any other battleship - would be pulled out of action after one good ASM hit or a suicide speedboat detonation.

And yes, the latter point is the relevant one. Battleships are huge, expensive, lumbering targets that provide little benefit for a massive expenditure of resources. In RTS terms, they need to be made cheaper or seriously buffed to become useful.

[Scotty]

Not trying to flip out, the bold caps was because I really thought it was only a few dozen until I looked it up.

Hmmm, the wiki bills it as having been hit by ten torpedoes, which would probably sink any ship ever set afloat by man, battleship or otherwise.

[NGTM-1R]

If you're going to make amphibious assaults, operating artillery is probably more cost-effective than shooting missiles. And you can probably carry more shells than missiles... but that depends on the ship. But since we're talking about battleships... Conventional shells certainly don't have the pinpoint accuracy of a missile strike, but they're unbeatable for volume fire. The Iowa-Class boats were actually used for this role several times, if I'm not mistaken. Keep in mind, however, that such engagements are very few on the modern war front.

To be honest, with modern technology the 16" can be made as accurate as any weapon. It helps that the propellants that they were using before the ships were retired had made massive advances in reliability.

Current plans for amphibous support include a VLS ATACMS and another drop-in replacement setup for the Burke's VLS launcher, but neither of them honestly hold up well under close examination to ship's gunfire.

[TrashMan]

The ship will not be able to fight without the superstructure. End of story. Radar, comms, everything: it's up there.

Actually, there are backups in each turret tower. It's an older system, but the main guns are fully capable of shooting and targeting on their own.

not to mention that with thing like wireless communication and stuff, ta ship can recieve targeting data from other friendly vessels without the need for a radar of it's own - and the recievers(s) don't even have to be exposed.

EDIT:
Also, the Yamato was a flawed design. It's waterline armor and bulkheads, as well as it's anti-air armament were laughably inferior to the Iowa.
The Yamato was large, but ultimatively poorly designed.
So saying "Yamato was sunk with 19 hits, so Iowa will be too" is like saying "The T-84 was destroyed by a RPG hit, so the Abrams will be too". They are different beasts.

Ultimatively, a battleship is a huge, juicy target - but then again, any large vessel is. It's not like planes for an aircraft carrier or missiles are exactly cheap these days.
The value of Iowas is as a shore artillery platform - it can lob thousands of cheap and effective rounds. IIRC, each turret has a 700-round magazine. That's a lot of bang. Compared ot the number of missiles that need to be hauled and fired, and their cost, it has clear advanatages.

And a funny little fact - the Iowas were designed to protect carriers - form both enemy warships  AND aircraft. They proved their worth by helping repel 4 enemy air attacks.

[General Battuta]

Battleships, including the Iowa, are massive floating targets, historically capable of putting a lot of ordinance on stationary shore targets but with debatable effect. Historically most battleships have been killed by internal explosion (often accidental), mines, or submarine torpedoes - all of which remain possible if not extraordinarily threatening today.

The presence of backup fire control for the main guns is basically irrelevant when battleship main guns are about as potent as a sword in modern naval combat. Now, certainly, guns can be useful (infantry still carry bayonets and knives, akin to swords!) but they shouldn't be centerpiece weapons.

There is a reason they have been phased out: they are obsolete and serve no real function.

[The E]

Yep. Battleships represent a massive investment in terms of shipbuilding and personnel requirements, which can usually be taken out by a much cheaper weapons system. They are useful only in a very narrow set of circumstances, and their role can be filled much cheaper by a Carrier group, which has the additional benefit of being more defensible and more versatile.

[NGTM-1R]

The presence of backup fire control for the main guns is basically irrelevant when battleship main guns are about as potent as a sword in modern naval combat. Now, certainly, guns can be useful (infantry still carry bayonets and knives, akin to swords!) but they shouldn't be centerpiece weapons.

And IIRC the secondary fire-control was removed from most of the Iowas in their eighties modernizations anyways, as visual FC is irrevelant compared to radar computerized FC.

[SpardaSon21]

One thing battleships do extremely well is bombarding stationary targets into rubble from long range.  They're floating artillery platforms.  You can either fire several very expensive Tomahawk missiles to penetrate a hardened bunker, or you can fire a dozen or two 16 in. shells to do it for a fraction of the price.

It could also be argued that a lot of the problems with battleships is that they are old.  A battleship designed from the keel up with 21st century technology could potentially be a very useful carrier escort.

[The E]

It could be a useful carrier escort if a) Anyone tries taking out carriers with surface ships b) Destroyers and CGMs suddenly become very bad at intercepting incoming threats c) Carrier air wings lose their bombing capability d) The aforementioned Cruisers and Destroyers get decannoned.

[TrashMan]

Iowa's are equipped with many missile systems to boot. They don't relay just on their main guns anymore.

Not to mention that if you're going to throw an aircraft carrier + all of it's aircraft against a battleship, then the cost difference is massive.
A battleship with a escort of several specialized anti-air destroyers?

but we're kinda moving off the tracks here. This thread was supposed to be about death rays, no?

[SpardaSon21]

Well, you could always mount death rays on a battleship.

[MR_T3D]

Well, you could always mount death rays on a battleship.

imagine how bigof a death ray you could mount on one...
but then again, you would need either LoS to target, or some mirror system that probably wouldn't work that well...
may lose range compared to a BIG old gun

[SpardaSon21]

True, but you do get a massive laser, especially if said battleship is nuclear-powered.  You could also possibly mount laser anti-missile systems on it to detonate far away anti-ship missiles.

[The E]

That would pretty much be the only reason to use directed energy weapons. A BBs capability as a fire support vessel kinda depends on its indirect fire capability....

[StarSlayer]

I don't suppose building a new cheaper platform for mounting 16 inchers out fitted with modern fire control etc. to support Marines landings would be a better solution?  I assume if you making landings you have already achieved local air and naval superiority?