[NGTM-1R]

Big ones?

16"/50 Mark 7, can't identify the ship but it was taken in the '60s probably; thats the CVN version of Enterprise in the background, and the main optical rangefinder is not in its WW2 configuration. (Also note that in normal operations, the rangefinder was faced astern, to protect it from spray.)

[Inquisitor]

Looks BB to me. I can add nothing of value to the above




Anyway, we were talking about 2nd amendment, which has very little to do with 16inch battleship guns

[Janos]

2nd amendment rights will protect loyal americans from the tyrannous battleships

u see... this .22LR... it ha senough stopping power to put a rat on its knees... we have a militia now

a militia of fat

spill the blood of the tyrants and despots now *grabs another big mac*

[General Battuta]

I went to a panel (paper presentation by a researcher) about how useless battleships were.

Apparently they never did very well at what they were supposed to do, even in the pre-aircraft-carrier era -- something to do with the crappy accuracy of their guns. And apparently the number one killer of battleships was minefields.

[NGTM-1R]

I went to a panel (paper presentation by a researcher) about how useless battleships were.

Apparently they never did very well at what they were supposed to do, even in the pre-aircraft-carrier era -- something to do with the crappy accuracy of their guns. And apparently the number one killer of battleships was minefields.

Considering I can't think of a single battleship that was lost to mines, I doubt that. It's true they were not accurate; they didn't have to be. They fired a lot of shells. You can say the same of any sort of gun. The amount of ordinance required to kill a single enemy soldier is usually in the range of tons each.

[TrashMan]

A dragunov? Really... That's small stuff
 

http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn56-e.htm

[General Battuta]

I went to a panel (paper presentation by a researcher) about how useless battleships were.

Apparently they never did very well at what they were supposed to do, even in the pre-aircraft-carrier era -- something to do with the crappy accuracy of their guns. And apparently the number one killer of battleships was minefields.

Considering I can't think of a single battleship that was lost to mines, I doubt that. It's true they were not accurate; they didn't have to be. They fired a lot of shells. You can say the same of any sort of gun. The amount of ordinance required to kill a single enemy soldier is usually in the range of tons each.

The panel was over a year ago, but this guy was clearly an expert and had great sources. Had a wonderful matrix of battleship losses throughout history and the causes. Also told a hilarious anecdote about British battleships attempting to push through the Straits of Gallipoli and failing miserably at what they were built for, namely, the bombardment of shore forts. (He sounded a bit outraged: 'they couldn't get past a few shore forts and a handful of sailboats dropping mines!')

Also went on a bit about the farcical nature of battleship-on-battleship combat.

I was a pretty big fan of battleships on the basis of their cool factor, but after reading about the history of naval bombardment, I gotta say they pretty much sucked.

And if you can't remember a single battleship lost to mines, that's rather silly.

[Inquisitor]

the french battleship, Jean Bart, put up one hell of a fight against the americans during the invasion of North Africa ca. 1942.

But that is also not the point of this thread

[NGTM-1R]

The panel was over a year ago, but this guy was clearly an expert and had great sources. Had a wonderful matrix of battleship losses throughout history and the causes. Also told a hilarious anecdote about British battleships attempting to push through the Straits of Gallipoli and failing miserably at what they were built for, namely, the bombardment of shore forts.

I was a pretty big fan of battleships on the basis of their cool factor, but after reading about the history of naval bombardment, I gotta say they pretty much sucked.

And if you can't remember a single battleship lost to mines, that's rather silly.

Nature of the beast, at the time. By Surigao Straight they were able to register first-salvo hits at 30,000 yards, but that was too late; the next day would see the aircraft carrier once and for all assert its dominance. Nothing was accurate then, so it is pointless to single out the battleship.

Seriously though. At least as far back as the Spanish-American War, I can't think of a single battleship loss to mines. (Unless you count the Maine, and that's been more recently forsenicly  traced to coaling issues.) In WW2, Barham was torpedoed, Bismarck is gunfire and torpedos with an air attack assist, Taranto was air attack, Battleship Row was air attack, Jean Bart was gunfire and air attack, Hiei was a combination of (admittedly non-battleship) gunfire and air attack, Kirishima was gunfire, Scharnhorst was gunfire and possibly one torpedo, Sibuyan Sea is air attack for Musashi, Surigao Strait was torpedos for Fuso and gunfire and torpedos for Yamashiro, Okinawa was air attack for Yamato, and the final destruction of the IJN was air attack for their remaining battleships.

The only loss that could even be misconstrued as mines was Mutsu, which blew up at anchor in Hiroshima Bay in 1943, probably due to a mishandled 16" shell.

And sorry Inquistor. Jean Bart never hit a US ship. Massachuetts put her out of action with a shell that jammed her operable turret in train; that was fixed in time for her to be bottomed in port by Ranger's divebombers.

[General Battuta]

Um, read the Wikipedia article I linked.

It's not exactly battleships going up in flames with magazines breached, but it is ships put out of action.

And, again, I saw a well-sourced presentation with a tabulation of all battleship casualties (including dreadnoughts, pre-dreadnoughts, etcetera) and mines came out ahead.

[Scotty]

So did the Bismark in the North Atlantic.  However, they both lost, and for much less than it cost to construct the massive behemoths in the first place.

Another example:  Taffy 3 vs. the Yamato battlegroup, headed by the largest battleship ever (then) constructed.  Seven destroyers and destroyer escorts total, forced to defend 6 escort carriers vs. 4 battleships, 6 cruisers of various sizes, and 10-12 destroyers.  Taffy 3 ended up sinking 3 cruisers and damaging others, and the battleships were just about useless, while losing only destroyers and one escort carrier.

The point is that battleships are too slow, unwieldy, large, expensive, and easily outmaneuvered to be truly effective.  Look to the Colossus for a good example of why it doesn't work.  Slow, expensive, long construction, etc.  Not to mention the dangers of being knocked out of the park by the Giant Baseball Bat of Doom^TM.

[NGTM-1R]

And, again, I saw a well-sourced presentation with a tabulation of all battleship casualties (including dreadnoughts, pre-dreadnoughts, etcetera) and mines came out ahead.

Well, produce it. Ships out of action that sailed home don't scan as losses, which is how this was originally cast. Besides, we can trace the concept of battleships back to the concept of the Line of Battle, which goes back to the days of sail, and if you want to do that, then I'm probably going to win this argument. (The leading cause of death for a 74 was navigational error.)

So did the Bismark in the North Atlantic.  However, they both lost, and for much less than it cost to construct the massive behemoths in the first place.

Another example:  Taffy 3 vs. the Yamato battlegroup, headed by the largest battleship ever (then) constructed.  Seven destroyers and destroyer escorts total, forced to defend 6 escort carriers vs. 4 battleships, 6 cruisers of various sizes, and 10-12 destroyers.  Taffy 3 ended up sinking 3 cruisers and damaging others, and the battleships were just about useless, while losing only destroyers and one escort carrier.

The point is that battleships are too slow, unwieldy, large, expensive, and easily outmaneuvered to be truly effective.  Look to the Colossus for a good example of why it doesn't work.  Slow, expensive, long construction, etc.  Not to mention the dangers of being knocked out of the park by the Giant Baseball Bat of Doom^TM.

Not quite. It still took King George V, Rodney, a couple heavy cruisers, and some destroyers to sink Bismark, and this is despite the fact Bismark had its rudder jammed. (In fact, it is a point of some contention whether they actually sunk Bismark or whether Bismark's crew scuttled.) Bismark had earlier sunk Hood and seen off Prince of Wales.

Similarly, Taffy 3 did not win that battle entirely on their own merits. (If you're interested in that action, I recommend reading Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors.) The aircraft mostly came from Taffy 2; the escort carriers' survival can mostly be traced to Admiral Kurita's poor tactical decisions and the sheer insane bravery of the escorting destroyers and destroyer escorts. And it cost them.

[General Battuta]

I wish I could produce it. As it stands I'm going to have to rely on Google-fu. But it was a good presentation by a well-informed grognard, clearly a battleship aficionado.

As usual, I'm not really sure if we're disagreeing on many things...except as to whether mines sank a lot of battleships/dreadnoughts/pre-dreads.

I will do the Googling later because something awesome and totally classified is happening on the Freespace front.

[Inquisitor]

I can see I am going to have to ask for another split

The battle between the drydocked Jean Bart, the USS Massachussetts and her cruiser escort and the planes from the USS Ranger was a pretty lengthy affair, spanning two days, effectively. The first day, she duelled with teh Mass and her cruisers. The next day, she engaged the Augusta and her escort.

She tied up 4-6 US capital ships and the resources of a carrier, plus their destroyer screens. She didn't hit anything, but she did engage ships in such a way that effectively took them out of the fight for substantial periods of time each day. Her crew worked overnight to put her back into the action the next day. Every shell at her was a shell not used to bombard the shore positions. Though arguably, she was little more than a big shore battery.

I can see that I am going to have to edit the wiki article, there are some things missing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_battleship_Jean_Bart_(1940)

For a description of that battle, you can check out "Operations in North African Waters" by Samuel Morrison (who was a junior officer on the USS Brooklyn at the time), or my own grandfathers diary refers to the events (he was on the radio of the Brooklyn at the time):

http://www.deckersds.com/AOL/egard38083/MAB/freweafr.html

(sorry, the original site is down, so you get my 15 year old AOL web backup)

I believe there is a description of hte events by Adm Dauphan (sp?) in his "History of the French Navy in WW2" as well, but its been a while since I looked in that volume.

Either way, she put up a heckuva fight.

Maybe we can split the battleship posts I am very keen on discussing real naval warfare

-edit-
egads the typos...

[TrashMan]

The panel was over a year ago, but this guy was clearly an expert and had great sources. Had a wonderful matrix of battleship losses throughout history and the causes.

How do you know he had great sources? As an avid fan of naval warfare with over 1000 books (I kid you not. Over 2400 book total! My house is a friggin library) at home abut ships, sailing and the navy in general I can tell you that's utter bollocks.

I've got a dozen books on the war in the pacific and mediterian and I can't recall a single battleship lost to a mine.

Another example:  Taffy 3 vs. the Yamato battlegroup, headed by the largest battleship ever (then) constructed.  Seven destroyers and destroyer escorts total, forced to defend 6 escort carriers vs. 4 battleships, 6 cruisers of various sizes, and 10-12 destroyers.  Taffy 3 ended up sinking 3 cruisers and damaging others, and the battleships were just about useless, while losing only destroyers and one escort carrier.

Yamato was formidable on paper only. Not to mention that Japanese made one really big error of building their ships with really sub-par anti-air armament. The Irony, given that they started the whole carrier attack approach.

The point is that battleships are too slow, unwieldy, large, expensive, and easily outmaneuvered to be truly effective.  Look to the Colossus for a good example of why it doesn't work.  Slow, expensive, long construction, etc.  Not to mention the dangers of being knocked out of the park by the Giant Baseball Bat of Doom^TM.

Now that's a really wrong example.
The Collie has a speed of 30m/s, which makes it faster than most cruisers! Not to mention that with JUMP DRIVES there is no "slow and easily outmanouvered" anymore. There is no horizon for carries to hide behind. The distances between a battleship in FS2 universe and the carrier target can be closed within seconds.

[karajorma]

I can see I am going to have to ask for another split

I'm not bothering unless someone starts talking about the 2nd amendment again.

[Inquisitor]

Which is very annoying

[karajorma]

Considering I can't think of a single battleship that was lost to mines, I doubt that.

It really depends on which war you're talking about.

http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/sunk.html.

[General Battuta]

The panel was over a year ago, but this guy was clearly an expert and had great sources. Had a wonderful matrix of battleship losses throughout history and the causes.

How do you know he had great sources? As an avid fan of naval warfare with over 1000 books (I kid you not. Over 2400 book total! My house is a friggin library) at home abut ships, sailing and the navy in general I can tell you that's utter bollocks.

I've got a dozen books on the war in the pacific and mediterian and I can't recall a single battleship lost to a mine.

You're forgetting about World War I.  Dreadnoughts, battleships -- the name changed because of a treaty.

Oh, yeah, he also pointed a lot of stuff about how they kept blowing up accidentally. That was a riot.

[Scotty]

*Bump*

I can't let a thread I posted this much on just die, can I?