Challenge: Have the Big-Gun Super-Battleships still being built as used today

Clibanarius

Banned
Title says all.

Basically people decided battleships were niche weapons and because of aircraft, expense, subs, and nukes, they finally quit using them.

So your challenge is to keep that from happening.

. . . And go.
 
One idea

The U.S.M.C. lobbied to keep the Iowa class battleships in service for the sole use of shore bombardment preceding beach landings. My idea would be to build a new class of ship, relatively smaller more like a battle cruiser optimize the hull be be a stable gun platform. Lose the armor for the most part in return for speed and mobility. Give it updated 16" guns something like the 5" mark 45 on steroids. Coupled with satellite imagery, the latest in e.c.m. and a.a. I'd dare anyone to give you trouble 30-40 miles from the coast.:)
 
The U.S.M.C. lobbied to keep the Iowa class battleships in service for the sole use of shore bombardment preceding beach landings. My idea would be to build a new class of ship, relatively smaller more like a battle cruiser optimize the hull be be a stable gun platform. Lose the armor for the most part in return for speed and mobility. Give it updated 16" guns something like the 5" mark 45 on steroids. Coupled with satellite imagery, the latest in e.c.m. and a.a. I'd dare anyone to give you trouble 30-40 miles from the coast.:)

Peabody-Martini

Possibly reverse that a bit. Lose the speed, although that reduces flexibility in how quickly it could be deployed but give it decent armour/active defences against any counter attacks. Basically an updated monitor [in the WWI rather than the ACW meaning of the word]. Won't be quite as accurate at a missile or as flexible but pretty cheap in terms of the munitions. Losing speed helps here in that you could have a relatively short/broad hull like the monitors, which made them good bombardment platforms I think.

Steve
 
A buddy of mine once told me that the targeting system on an Abrams could put a shell though a space the size a dinner plate at almost a mile. I know this is apples and oranges but I say this to show whats possible. With satellites and drones you could in theory place a 2000 Lbs. shell over the horizon to with in a few feet of the target. However for bombardment its horseshoes and hand grenades. Your idea of making it more like a W.W.1 monitor has merit. My idea would be that a fast unit that could quickly deploy and move at the speed of a carrier group. Because its built for indirect fire and would stand well off heavy armor would be unnecessary.

The monitors were built for harbor defense and to operate in inland waterways. As a result they required a shallow draft, they were never considered truly seaworthy. More recently the concept of the monitor as a warship was reinvented in the Vietnam war.
 
Last edited:

pnyckqx

Banned
A buddy of mine once told me that the targeting system on an Abrams could put a shell though a space the size a dinner plate at almost a mile. I know this is apples and oranges but I say this to show whats possible. With satellites and drones you could in theory place a 2000 Lbs. shell over the horizon to with in a few feet of the target. However for bombardment its horseshoes and hand grenades. Your idea of making it more like a W.W.1 monitor has merit. My idea would be that a fast unit that could quickly deploy and move at the speed of a carrier group. Because its built for indirect fire and would stand well off heavy armor would be unnecessary.

The monitors were built for harbor defense and to operate in inland waterways. As a result they required a shallow draft, they were never considered truly seaworthy. More recently the concept of the monitor as a warship was reinvented in the Vietnam war.
The description you've just given is a battleship without the heavy armor. The Iowa class is rated for 33 knots, but the Wisconsin is capable of 35 due to repairs after a collision in 1958. That easily keeps up with a carrier battle group. No telling what speed it could make by removing the armor belts. However, since it can keep up, why bother to remove the armor?

The Iowa Class main battery can shoot a full sized 16" projectile 24 miles. It can shoot an 8" discarding sabot round (in order to fit the main battery guns) about 50 miles.

You need bigger and more powerful guns to get beyond that range. That may increase the size of the ship needed to haul those guns.


The main problems with the Iowa class are

  1. Operational costs
  2. Vulnerability to air attack
  3. Vulnerability to submarine attack.
Of those, only the first is really significant. What ship goes anywhere without air or ASW cover these days? A carrier is vulnerable to air and sub attack too: IF you can get past the CAP and the ASW screen.

i have to question the stated need for that kind of capability however. The question is whether or not the US retains the Amphibious assets to perform a large scale landing of troops that would need the gun support of an Iowa class (or more than one Iowa Class ) type of ship. i have no knowledge of this issue. i do know that we were in a bad logistical position with Desert Shield/Storm, and that's why it took six months to begin the ground war.


 

Clibanarius

Banned
Well we did put Phalanx CIWS' on the Iowa's.

Why not add more AM and AA missiles to her armament? And a few torpedo launchers?
 
How big of a big gun? I created the King Maurice I class BBG, and it had two pairs of 200mm chain guns, as well as a bunch of VLT. All big gun and no missile ships will not be possible.
 

Sir Chaos

Banned
...unless some of the railgun/coilgun technology currently in development works out and is feasible for large naval guns. Bombardment ranges of 200-300 nautical miles, combined with magazines holding thousands of rounds, sounds like it would be more useful than a traditional battleship.
 
Most intriguing...but, remember...

...Scaling up any gun system requires changes in design, so a 5" on steroids is not really a runner.

If you want something with modern relevance, then a gun that could take out a missile or a satellite starts to become interesting, if placed in a strong and world-deployable hull.

I'm as guilty of scaling as any guy - would it be possible to APDS a 4" round from a 16" gun by using a solid rocket in the shell-base to boost it to orbital heights (not speeds, I hasten to say)? Answers on the side of a Martlet missile, please....
 
...unless some of the railgun/coilgun technology currently in development works out and is feasible for large naval guns. Bombardment ranges of 200-300 nautical miles, combined with magazines holding thousands of rounds, sounds like it would be more useful than a traditional battleship.

And can inflict Posleen-type casualties on aerial attackers.
 
Corditeman

The idea was not a 5" gun scaled up per say but something like the mark 45 system built around a 16" gun. The idea as I see it is to keep the big guns in use by the world navies. To do that they have to have a use beyond being grandfathered in from earlier era and now make for real cool floating museums. The mark 45 has been developed over the last several decades whereas nothing like the 16"/50 has been built sense 1943 to my knowledge.

As for a air or sub attack, that implies two industrial powers at war with each other, nuke exchange, mass death and end of civilization. Very ugly. For what I would have in mind see the actions of the New Jersey in Vietnam
 
As far as a POD to keep BBs in service until now.. hmmm. Anything that makes nukes or carriers less prevalent. Shore bombardment is always considered essential right before a landing, the only thing lacking lately has been $$. BBs are very manpower intensive.
A POD that increases the Navy budget would work too. 1 less Land War and 1 more Navy War would do it. Italy instead of Iraq. They both start with an "I". Or cheaper sailors.

What I'd do would be to take one of the crummy big office buildings full of Navy guys doing boring paperwork, and set em up onboard a refurbbed BB. Maybe just enough to man a turret or two, when they arent actually practicing 16 inch gunnery, they can do their boring paperwork at sea and fax the stuff in. When a War starts, hire temps onshore to do the paperwork. You cant tell me the Navy doesnt have 1000 people who'd work a bit harder to get sea pay.
 

Art

Monthly Donor
I'd want to cut down the crew to about 300 or 400, and increase the range to the range of the five and six inch guns on the Cunningham class stealth destroyer in Target Lock. That could fire 20 miles or 100 with rocket assisted rounds. Shells are always cheaper than missiles or rockets, you know
 
I think big-gun ships will return in the future. When directed EMP charges and magnetic shields make missiles ineffective, a gun ship with that equipment will be able to sink any other vessel.
 
Need more to keep more

In order for theUSN--or anyone else--to keep battleships, you need a good reason. So, here's an option:

The USSR builds its large 16" battleships post World War II. Now, if there's a good CAP, attacing a batleship by air becomes difficult. Subs, likewise, can be stopped most of trhe time. And in truely nasty weather, both subs and planes are of very limited utility. Some areas--like the North Sea--have LOTS of nasty weather.

Ultimately, one of a batleship's jobs doesn't even involve fighting. It involves making everyone else see that they don't WANT to fight that big steel monster...
 
well during the 90s some members of the USN and Senate wanted to build arsenal ships which would almost be what you're after-except with lots and lots and LOTS of Cruise missiles...
 
Top