The US Navy Keeps its Big Guns - the Battleships stay active

[Simon Darkshade]

Monitors are a fair enough solution for the 50s and even the early 60s.
However, it comes down to a question of matching up the ideal firepower to the ideal platform.
A twin 15" is overkill; a single 15" would also be so, as it would require designing a newer mount and a lot of development work on the shell.
The 12" gun mooted in the 60s would have been far more powerful, longer range and taken a slightly smaller platform.
However, both of them pale in comparison to the advantages of the 8" weapon, in that it can fit on a wider variety of smaller platforms. These smaller platforms can be in more places at once, earn their place in the fleet due to other capabilities anyway and are of managable size and price.
30+ Spruance class destroyers with 8" guns are quite a capability. If absolutely necessary, it could be augmented by 4-6 LFS ships with two of the 8" weapons, along with bombardment missiles. However, the latter ships are far more one-dimensional and less likely to get funding.

In terms of what ship can take on a monitor: submarines firing from some distance away, cruiser and destroyers firing a lot of shells very fast to mission kill it, or destroyers firing torpedos or long range AShMs. Good ships, but not invulnerable or what one would describe as 'capable of full fleet operations'.

 

[The Dean]

In terms of what ship can take on a monitor: submarines firing from some distance away, cruiser and destroyers firing a lot of shells very fast to mission kill it, or destroyers firing torpedos or long range AShMs. Good ships, but not invulnerable or what one would describe as 'capable of full fleet operations'.

When I discussed the Roberts class I was referring to contemporary vessels and I excluded submarines. I think the gunnery officer on the Roberts would have had an orgasm if an enemy cruiser or destroyer had come within range of his weapons. Of course the commander of the enemy ship would soon use it's speed to escape once it correctly identified the monitor, their gunnery was very, very good!

A modern version would be no less well equipped with point defence such as goalkeeper and or sea wolf. It would have a helicopter hanger and flight deck so could even have a degree of anti-submarine defence. The twin 14" turrets of the KG5s would have made a good basis for the class and so would the triple 12"s from the Alaskas.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Even in the case of contemporary vessels, a Second World War monitor could be in trouble if attacked from a number of different directions at once, or by a number of ships at once. As said, they were good ships and capable fire platforms, but not fleet surface combatants or anything close; rather, they were extremely effective niche vessels.

Neither submarines nor aircraft can be excluded from a Second World War scenario, and in both cases, a monitor is in a bit of trouble.

A modern monitor is a ship in search of a role, rather than a need that needs to a ship being developed. Goalkeeper is useful, but not a panacea against a serious modern missile or air attack. The blast effects of heavy gunfire on Sea Wolf and it's associated radars could be quite damaging; similar to why the Iowas didn't get Sea Sparrow in the 80s, as well as cost.

Helo-carrying capacity is an ASW advantage, but doesn't increase the intrinsic survivability of the vessel - it simply allows detection and potential prosecution of submarine contacts at a much increase distance.

Any modern monitor would be better off with a modern gun, rather than an old battleship or cruiser turret. It is arguably better to have less 'launchers' and a greater magazine capacity, which is one factor that lead to the replacement of twin mounts by singles in the 40s and 50s.
The size of the gun should be driven by the required role, rather than a simple quest to get as big as possible.

It basically comes down to the situation that arises when designing any potential vessel on the back of a napkin: We are adding in all these capabilities simply to make it survivable. Do the unique benefits it brings to the fleet balance out this expense? Are some capabilities necessary, or are they simply duplicating existing abilities of other ships?

A monitor with SAMs, helos and all the bells and whistles ends up costing a very large amount for a ship that has a very narrow and limited use. It will cost a lot to run and maintain and not get the opportunity to perform it's primary role very often. It brings nothing to the fleet save 2-3 very heavy calibre guns which duplicate capabilities already in the fleet (strike missiles, aircraft, existing guns) .

What is the requirement that necessitates 12", 14", 15" or 16" guns?
What naval gunfire target has required heavier guns than an 8" since the Second World War? When answering that, factor in ordinary 240lb shells and superheavy 335lb shell.

When setting their requirements for fire support by division/air wing strength in 1962, the USMC wanted a battleship, two heavy cruisers, four destroyers and four rocket ships; this was clarified with the point "that substituting 8" guns for the battleship's 16", to attack hard targets, would only be a moderate risk."
Later, when determining fire support needs for Vietnam, there was a request for either two Des Moines class cruisers or a battleship, if I remember my 1968/69 Janes correctly.
The need for very heavy gunfire does not seem to be a specific one.

In the 50s, the utility of the 16" gun and thus the battleships was the firing of atomic shells as preliminary bombardment for an amphibious landing; this was later made somewhat superfluous by the ability to fire atomic shells from 8" guns, as well as Terrier and Talos being used as shore bombardment rockets.

In conclusion, a monitor is a niche capacity that made sense in WW2, but was still vulnerable the; it brings little to nothing to a modern fleet; it would be very expensive and seldom used; the actual requirement for guns above 8" in calibre is rather nebulous.

As said previously, it would be far better in terms of amphibious fire support to have a lot of 8" guns on destroyer sized vessels; any specific fire support vessels would probably meet with the fate of the Carronade.

A post-WW2 battleship is most likely to emerge as a BBG/BG (the latter being the never used abreviation for 'large missile ship') in the late 50s/early 60s. However, it would not carry any guns beyond 5" or 3", be obscenely expensive, have trouble controlling the amount of missiles it could theoretically launch, and be an unnecessary duplication of capability in the face of DLGs and CGs.

 

[TheMann]

Well, perhaps you could design a new turret for the 16" and go with that for a modern monitor. I am well aware of the fact that the big guns are useless when trying to hit ships unless the gunnery is unbelievably good, but using them against shorelines makes more sense.

Simon, the reason that New Jersey was called up in 1967 was because the USMC wanted the fire support. Yes, Newport News could do the job just as well. But by 1967 it was the last heavy cruiser still in commission - the Clevelands didn't have big enough guns, so that meant either the one Des Moines, the Boston class (which was horribly out of date by Vietnam) and the Iowas. It's also kinda hard to keep one ship running all the time. I had forgotten about monitors, to be honest, but the idea is pretty valid. The concern about the backfire of guns is an issue. Can that be handled by better covering or armor.

It should also be said that all warships are overmanned as a tactical measure, and that some converted WWII cruisers lasted into the late 1970s. The Albany class missile cruisers would be good candidates for a conversion to a monitor, with its multiple sets of radars and lots of room. A 16" triple is out of the question, but a 12" or 16" double in place of the front radars and Talos launcher might be a good idea, especially if you replace the Talos missiles with the Mk-26 twin arms.

 

[Jukra]

A post-WW2 battleship is most likely to emerge as a BBG/BG (the latter being the never used abreviation for 'large missile ship') in the late 50s/early 60s. However, it would not carry any guns beyond 5" or 3", be obscenely expensive, have trouble controlling the amount of missiles it could theoretically launch, and be an unnecessary duplication of capability in the face of DLGs and CGs.

One possibility with realistic POD might be much worse showing of USN carriers during Second World War, specifically in their damage control and handling of Kamikaze interceptions (requiring higher Japanese competence). Perhaps POD should include mass introduction of Kamikazes only during Okinawa campaign, thus leaving USN less time to cope with the threat.

So, instead of historic casualties the Divine Wind makes a true mess of USN fast carrier force during Okinawa campaign. Number of CV's and CVL's are sunk. Even this does not turn the tide and does not necessarily even delay the Japanese surrender. But as a result aircraft carriers, while still considered to be the main element of USN striking force, do not reign supreme. More attention is turned towards guided missiles and surface combatants.

Off topic, in hindsight, was Okinawa campaign necessary at all?

 

[burmafrd]

One point forgotten is the composition of battleship armor.
Its very different then what you have on tanks.

 

[David S Poepoe]

The easiest thing to do is to emulate the British in the use of borrowed turrets and spare guns in building a modern US monitor. One could look to the USS Washington BB-56 which was scrapped in 1961.

A new hull is constructed to carry one triple 16in turret. Four dual 5in turrets are also mounted to serve as secondary armament. Standard AA armament is also shipped. I'm not that crazy about carrying aircraft or helicopters aft, particularly since the Navy is afloat with carriers. While a missile system of some sort mounted aft would also be considered, it would be impractical given the usual nature of monitors to get in close when bombarding. Drop any requirements for anything but defensive missile systems and just give the ship a decent speed to keep up with the fleet and fairly good armour. Given the likelihood that this ship would be used predominiately in the Pacific and Far East - maybe the Mediterranean - a shallow draft could be considered, but its not required.

Too much money, time and effort will be spent developing a new turret and barbette to carry just two 16in guns.

Also it would be good to consider the possibility of building monitors with the 8in gun turrets from the late and post war US cruisers.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

David: By the time the older fast and slow battleships were scrapped, there was no demand for any monitor-type ships.

There was some consideration given to mounting 16" armament on earlier iterations of what was to become the LFS, but was dismissed due to it being a duplication of other capabilities and not as effective as other developments. In short, the costs outweighed any benefits.

A ship with a triple 16" and 8 x 5", plus AA, plus missiles, plus fleet speed (30-32 knots) is going to be around the 20000-25000 ton area of displacement at the very minumum and cost a very large amount, along with needing a largish crew. It doesn't make sense to build such a ship as it duplicates existing capabilities in the early 60s for a lot of extra cost.

Jukra: Even in such a situation, the vast predominance of US and indeed allied naval construction was on carriers. Heavy losses would simply add extra impetus to the construction of further Essex class vessels and the Midways. The genie was out of the bottle by Okinawa, and a reversal is not particularly possible.
We may see an increase in AA escort production and accelerated work on particular weapon systems, but no wholesale replacement of the CV.

TheMann:

A new turret would cost a great deal to develop and produce, particularly for a 16" weapon.

The USMC wanted either a battleship or two automatic 8" cruisers. The Newport News was not the only CA in commission in 1968; at the very minimum, the St. Paul was still around from among the Baltimores and took part in some long range bombardment missions with special ammunition well beyond the range of the 16"50 Mk. 7.
The 8" cruisers could do a much better job as there were at least two of them - thus providing staying power - with a much greater rate of fire and superheavy shells capable of defeating the most heavily protected targets present. They took less manpower, were cheaper, and were more versatile.
The Bostons were reclassified to CAs from CAGs due to the obsolescence of their Terriers, but were still able to serve as fire support ships.
The 6" armed CLGs, whilst not as optimum as the 8", also had the advantage of being able to fire their shells closer to friendly forces.
The general consensus prior to Vietnam was that somewhere around 8" was ideal, with 6" a very good gun for a lot of general situations.

Better covering or armour does not stop radar and electronics from being damaged; by their very nature, they do need to be exposed to some degree. Even with hardening, blast remains a major problem.

The converted cruisers that lasted into the 70s were retained for their flagship and control capabilities well above and beyond any utility of their Terrier or Talos armament.
The Albanys were old ships by the time of their decommissioning, and well past the point where there could be any economic reason for converting them back to gunships. To do so would demand removing a lot of the dedicated superstructure installed in the original full conversion, including missile magazines. It is not a realistic option.

As for replacing Talos with Mk.26, the systems, power requirements and deck penetration are just a few of the factors that make it extremely difficult and beyond the point of reasonable expenditure.

Once again, what targets demand a 12" or 16" gun?

 

[CalBear]

A big gun ship has to be fairly substantial just to be a decent gunnery platform. If it is expected to be a warship (27 knots or better), opposed to a mobile battery like a monitor (which a hugely one dimensional vessel) you are talking at least 30,000, more likely 50,000 tons with a crew of 1,100 or more (down to around 400 if you built one TODAY and maxed out the automation). Anything less than that can't handle a 16" or 18" gun with any sort of reliability (or being shaken to pieces every time the main battery is fired).

The armor needs of the ship will be quite high, the only reason that the Soviets had to scramble a bit in the '80s was the novelity of the design, even so, by the end of 1980s they had some reasonable countermeasures, but in torpedoes and in supersonic missiles designed to kill 90,000 ton carriers with LOTS of Kelvar (up to 63mm+) and steel armor built into the designs. It is commonly thought that ships are not armored anymore, this isn't true, carriers are quite well protected,although lesser vessels are much less well protected this was also true on the "Treaty" cruisers of WW II. A Battleship would need to devote at least a third of its total displacement to armor, perhaps more (there is a reason that an M1A1 weighs 70 tons) to have reasonable protection in the inshore enviroment. Price? If built today, figure $3-4 Billion without missiles.

There is no way to aviod the rise of the carrier without altering history and technology to the point where it would be unrecognizable. Aircraft engines were entering a period of massive improvement in power per cc of displacement, this allowed a plane to carry a substantial load. By 1945 the Corsair or Hellcat could carry a half dozen "Tiny Tim" rockets, each tipped with a 500 pound semi AP Bomb giving each aircraft the firepower of a cruiser. The only way to counter the bad guys planes were having your own. A more successful kamakazi would not have resulting in the withdrawal of the carrier, it would have simply pushed the Midway class, with its armored flight deck and room even with the extra weight of 100 aircraft forward in time. The British carriers proved the usefulness of the armored deck in a VERY high threat enviroment in 1945, when they would pipe "sweeps man the brooms" when a kamakazi hit, although the RN ships paid far too high a price for the deck when you looked at endurance and aircraft capacity. The Midway and her sisters fixed those shortcomings and did so in a package that was in front line use for 50 years.

 

[Ferrell]

As I see it, the two main reasons big gun ships disappered were carriers and guided missiles. So, if the development of solid state transistors is pushed back 10-12 years,(with the development of IC chips pushed back to the early 80's), then big gun ships would be needed longer. Perhaps the concurent development of rocket-boosted artillary shells to increase range and rapid-fire heavy caliber guns would keep large, big gun ships in service. As a platform for AAA to escort Carriers in a TL without guided missiles, a Battlecruiser or Battleship would be the best; fast, heavily armored, and with staggering amounts of AAA. Plus, heavy guns to kill other ships, bombard shore implacements, and even lighter guns to use on secondary targets. As the WWII ships wore out during the late 60's, new ships would be designed and built; the same with the huge build-up during the mid-80's. The transistion to missiles that happened in OTL during the 50's-60's, would happen in this TL during the 80's-90's, with the second generation of missile/ advanced radar ships just being designed now.

 

[David S Poepoe]

David: By the time the older fast and slow battleships were scrapped, there was no demand for any monitor-type ships.

There was some consideration given to mounting 16" armament on earlier iterations of what was to become the LFS, but was dismissed due to it being a duplication of other capabilities and not as effective as other developments. In short, the costs outweighed any benefits.

A ship with a triple 16" and 8 x 5", plus AA, plus missiles, plus fleet speed (30-32 knots) is going to be around the 20000-25000 ton area of displacement at the very minumum and cost a very large amount, along with needing a largish crew. It doesn't make sense to build such a ship as it duplicates existing capabilities in the early 60s for a lot of extra cost.

No doubt about it.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

As I see it, the two main reasons big gun ships disappered were carriers and guided missiles. So, if the development of solid state transistors is pushed back 10-12 years,(with the development of IC chips pushed back to the early 80's), then big gun ships would be needed longer. Perhaps the concurent development of rocket-boosted artillary shells to increase range and rapid-fire heavy caliber guns would keep large, big gun ships in service. As a platform for AAA to escort Carriers in a TL without guided missiles, a Battlecruiser or Battleship would be the best; fast, heavily armored, and with staggering amounts of AAA. Plus, heavy guns to kill other ships, bombard shore implacements, and even lighter guns to use on secondary targets. As the WWII ships wore out during the late 60's, new ships would be designed and built; the same with the huge build-up during the mid-80's. The transistion to missiles that happened in OTL during the 50's-60's, would happen in this TL during the 80's-90's, with the second generation of missile/ advanced radar ships just being designed now.

Without missiles, the gun remains the weapon to be used against aircraft.
However, it was already in trouble in 1945.

With aircraft continuing to advance in speed and performance, which is a separate issue from transistors and guided missiles, even advanced AA systems such as the 3"70, the rapid fire 5" or even adaptions of the British Ratefixer or Green Mace will not be able to react quickly enough in order to provide an adequate defence.

By the 1950s, we are looking at transonic aircraft making the gun defences of any ships very superfluous. This is further exacerbated in a few years with supersonic planes.

The armour needed to resist aerial attack is deck armour - belt armour is not worth as much as in the epoch of the straight out gunfight.

The post war RN studies regarding modified Lions came out with a 12" deck and a displacement of well over 70000 tons.
This was still not enough to resist the conventional armour piercing bombs of the time.

Add in rocket propelled bombs, as was referred to by CalBear in his reference to Tiny Tim, plus basic guided bombs (again, pre-transistor) and 'dumb rockets' and any ship is in trouble.

In such a situation, I'm going to want more carriers to carry more aircraft, and a lot of small, capable escorts with rapid fire 5" and 3" guns; putting all one's eggs into one basket for AA defence with a superfluous battleship is not a sound recipe for a fleet.

The movement of research post WW2 was not towards rocket propelled shells or a renaissance of the big gun, but rather an eclipse of the big gun through rockets, bombs, aircraft, guided weapons and atomic weapons. For example, Britain was looking to develop rocket weapons that would strike with the range and power of a 16" shell, rather than further refine the 16" shell itself.

The other unfortunate factor in this situation is that suspending transistor development does not stop the development of atomic weapons, which were a major factor in the doom of the battleship, and in the eclipse of gun based AA defence. The situation there is in favour of the attacker; like the IRA statement regarding their terrorist action at Brighton in the 80s, 'We only have to be lucky once. You have to be lucky all the time.'

It was not one, nor two, nor three main reasons that killed off the battleship, but a combination of quite a few, along with perception and economy.

 

[The Dean]

Just one last, no I won't say last, word in the defence of the "monitor" concept. The RN operated over 50 of the things all over the world, very few were lost to enemy action. Indeed they took a lot of punishment while exposing themselves to enemy fire in order to deliver their fire support yet casualties on board were never high. They didn't operate alone but in fleet actions to support the ground forces.

They were cheap and cheerful, no problem with putting all the eggs in one basket. I don't see them having to weigh in at 30,000 tons the twin 15" monitors of the RN all came in at under 10,000 tons with a secondary armament of 8x4.7" in twin turrets. In fact one had an 18" gun turret mounted aft on it's quarterdeck. That was with designs dating from before 1914 and a last build around 193something. With more modern design and build there could be a similar weapon suite with a speed of 30 knots without increasing the size up to 30 or even 50,000 tons. I deliberately suggested using the twin rather than the quad 14" turrets from the KG5s or the Alaska class's triple 12.9" to keep the size down.

With the opposition the USN or in fact even the RN is facing today Roberts or Erebus would have done just fine in either gulf war providing close support. One of the BBs was saved from a silkworm hit by a sea dart from a type 42 in the first gulf war so the accompanying ships were able to fend off attacks on the fire support vessels.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Missouri was indeed saved by a Sea Dart from Gloucester. That was just one ship of many that operated in that campaign as an escort for the two battleships, not to mention the effort made to get them in close enough to fire. Not the most cost effective arrangement.

Why commit a whole group of ships to defend a single fire support vessel when one can have the necessary fire power from platforms that can take care of themselves and would be in the fleet anyway? It is not cost effective.

Furthermore, it is not always going to be the case that the enemy proves to be as inept as the Iraqi military was in 1991; not every enemy between 1950 and the present day would only fire a pair of missiles from one direction of attack on one occasion.

In 2003, RN and RAN frigates with 4.5" and 5" guns provided NFS for far less overall associated cost, delivered it closer to the troops and in some ways made more of an impact than all of the 1100 odd 16" shells fired in Desert Storm.

It costs a lot to get 30 knots of speed out of a vessel, let alone one that has to carry a flight deck, heavy guns, secondary armament, AA guns, the radars to control all that and other capabilities.

Using old guns only makes sense in a temporary, Vanguard type fashion. When at peace and with time, it is arguably much better to get a new, single gun that can easily outperform the older weapons in twin or triple mounts. It weighs less, has a greater rate of fire, a greater range, reduced manning, more commonality of spare parts and design with other parts of the fleet and allows the design of newer shells.

Once again, why 12" or 14" ? What targets require 940lb and 1590lb shells respectively that cannot be destroyed by repeated hits from 335lb or 240lb shells? Are there any other cost effective ways of delivery such a strike using capabilities that will already be in the fleet?

The beauty and utility of the RN monitors is that they were relatively small, relatively cheap, expendable and an appropriate answer to the tactical question of the day. Post WW2, they and their type are not an appropriate answer to the tactical questions, given the changed circumstances - much smaller fleets, much tighter economy, massive changes in military amphibious doctrine and the exponential growth in the lethality of aircraft.

 

[Andrew Hudson]

Fantasy fleet

Loved it might be but highly unlikely. Ideas for conversion of battleships to missile carriers were considered and rejected on grounds of cost including the possibility of completing the Kentucky as a missile ship. The only missile carrying battleship was the Mississipi which was used as a trials ship a bit like the cruiser HMS Cumberland only I don't think the latter carried missiles.

Would the United States have sold the Alaska to Canada? More recently the United States were unhappy about the Candians getting submarines from Britain owing to territorial disputes in the North West passage. Also the Canadian disposed of the cruisers HMCS Ontario and HMCS Quebeck around 1960 as they were obsolete and costly so they were unlikely to have bought an even bigger white elephant. The battleship had had its day by 1945. Cruisers seem to be rapdily following suit as only a few countries have them now

 

[TheMann]

I just had one more idea - take the Boston-class cruiser and remove the second 8" turret and the front 5" turret, and install a double 16". These also had Talos and Terrier missiles, and could conceivably be upgraded to SM-2s with Mk-13 or Mk-26 launchers later on.

 

[David S Poepoe]

I just had one more idea - take the Boston-class cruiser and remove the second 8" turret and the front 5" turret, and install a double 16". These also had Talos and Terrier missiles, and could conceivably be upgraded to SM-2s with Mk-13 or Mk-26 launchers later on.

Cost prohibitive. That is alot of gutting you have to do.

 

[burmafrd]

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-029.htm

A pretty decent repudiation about many claims made that the Iowa class BBs were not really as fast as claimed.

For those of you who think 5" guns can have an effect anything like 16" guns- you might want to read up on what the NV forces thought of what the New Jersey did to them.

Saying the Missouri was "saved" by the sea dart is pretty arrogant.