Replies

What do you mean no armor piercing bombs??

Basically, no one has armor-piercing bombs in inventory any more. We (US) have a few hard-case bombs for penetrating bunkers, but there aren't a lot of those. Since no one has been putting armor on ships, no one's Navy has much armor-piercing capability. If you look at Harpoon, Tomahawk, Exocet, etc. none of them have any real armor-penetrating capability.

Similarly, except for submarine torpedoes (admittedly a real threat), no one has heavy torpedoes that could sink a truly armored ship, even with 17 hits (as in Musashi). The air-launched and surface-ship launched torpedoes are all light anti-submarine weapons.

That doesn't mean any ship is unsinkable, but it means that a truly armored ship would not be at much risk of sinking from the weapons in current world inventory (again, aside from subnmarine torpedoes, but it would take several of those).

Obviously, armor-penetrating weapons could be re-introduced, but not on current anti-shipping missiles (e.g. Harpoon) because there is no room for the hard case with any meaningful bursting charge. Nor are current Naval and/or shore guns heavy enough to deliver the sort of warhead it would take. The quickest way to re-equip to attack armored ships effectively would be conventional aircraft bombs - the armor-piercing versions of which were originally derived from battleship shells (a demonstration that they are too large for current artillery). The US is the only nation with an effective carrier force so that means shore-based aircraft. Launching a major strike would be a clear act of war, so once again it seems like an armored ship might work for freedom of the seas demonstrations.