You'll see.
Posted on 04/15/2005 2:27:55 AM PDT by Zero Sum
"There is no weapon system in the world that comes even close to the visible symbol of enormous power represented by the battleship." -- Retired Gen. P.X. Kelly, USMC
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Those words of the former Marine commandant resonate with me. In 1969, gunfire from the battleship USS New Jersey (BB-62) saved my rifle platoon in Vietnam. During her six months in-theater, the USS New Jersey's 16-inch guns were credited with saving more than 1,000 Marines' lives. The North Vietnamese so feared the ship that they cited her as a roadblock to the Paris peace talks. Our leaders, as they did so often in that war, made the wrong choice and sent her home. Now, 36 years later, Washington is poised to make another battleship blunder.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
When nations stopped building battleships, they also stopped building weapons that could sink a battleship. The vast majority of the sea-skimming missles and air-dropped munitions would do little else but prompt an early "sweepers" call. Just the presence of a BB on the scene would calm down conflicts real quick. I truly believe that we are lessened by their absence.
I don't know why this flashed through my head when I read your post, but here goes...
You know that there is talk of re-purposing a couple of Ohio subs that are no longer supposed to be used as "boomers" under the START agreements? I've seen plans to pull the missle tubes and do things like convert them for special operations. Opening sections to release small boats (mostly zodiacs and the like) as well as enhanced capabilities for dropping off divers, etc. After all, they are the quietest (and therefore stealthiest) vessels ever put to sea.
Well, what if you put in a REALLY BIG set of doors, kinda like the ones on the Space Shuttle, where the missle tubes were. Under them you put a couple of 16 inch guns like the old battle wagons used to have (or modern ones of the Bull super gun design). Interesting, if impractical idea.
You would absolutely have to fire them along the axis of the boat. Firing them perpendicular to the axis would almost certainly result in the sub rolling over. You'd never get a gunner to fire them a second time, even if you could find a skipper to give the order!
No crazier than some of the other ideas floated here so far..
Miniature, autononmous robots are the future of warfare.
I think not. They have their uses but will never replace a man on the ground with a rifle. Case in point: the difficulties we have in securing Iraq.
There aren't enough grunts because people that normally would have been detailed infantry are busy tapping out commands on laptops. The forces engaged are also too tank heavy.
The reliance on techincal gadgets and machinery to the detriment of land forces is obvious to anyone watching. Low-tech isn't sexy, but it's necessary.
Wombat my friend,
The Alaska class large or battle cruisers were completed before the end of WWII. Alaska and Guam saw combat (Okinawa, Iwo Jima). They mounted 9-12" guns , were not as heavily armored as the Iowas and just as fast.
Here is the data:
CLASS - ALASKA
Displacement 27,000 Tons, Dimensions, 808' 6" (oa) x 90' 9" x 31' 9" (Max)
Armament 9 x 12"/50 12 x 5/38AA, 56 x 40mm 34 x 20mm, 4 AC
Armor, 9" Belt, 12 4/5" Turrets, 1 2/5" +4" +5/8" Decks, 10 3/5" Conning Tower.
Machinery, 150,000 SHP; G.E. Geared Turbines, 4 screws
Speed, 33 Knots, Crew 1517.
Operational and Building Data
Layed down by New York Shipbuilding Corporation, Camden, NJ 17 DEC 1941
Launched 15 AUG 1943
Commissioned 17 JUN 1944
Decommissioned 17 FEB 1947
Stricken 01 JUN 1960
Fate: Sold for scrap to Lipsett Division of Luria Brothers, NY, NY on 30 JUN 1960
They were the American equivalent of the Scharnhorst and Gneisnau with the role of commerce raider being one of their intended primary missions. They were considered impractical and unwieldy. The German ships were better protected, suceeded as raiders, but were overmatched versus conventional battleships.
The Montanas were the ultimate US superdreadnoughts. Similar in appearance to the Iowa but much larger and heavily armored. 900 ft long , 127 ft wide, 75,000 tons with 16-19" armor belt. Originally designed to have 18" guns but changed to carry 12 - 16" 50 cal rifles as the Iowas main armament proved very sucessful. Machinery would have similar to Iowa using oil fired boilers and geared turbines producing 270,000 hp and 27-31 knots. It is a shame that we did not build at least two of these monsters (6 in the original build)as they could have been bombarding Iraq during Desert Storm.
The Kirov would actually be a good design to begin with for a heavy surface combatant today.
You'll see.
Yeah, someone else already corrected me..My bad...The Alaskas were designed to be "super-heavy" cruisers.
The Montanas, though, would have been awesome ships.
We can only hope, but I doubt it...2,500 years after the phalanx and the Roman legions, we still have infantrymen (excuse me, infantrypersons), don't we?
A lot of those years were wasted filling out warranties and registering for prize drawings.
I would love to see it if someone could do it. It's a capability that has been sorely negelected and allowed to disappear.
Ollie begs the question. When do we eliminate these ships from our inventory? The New Jersey was commissioned in 1943 and the Wisconsin in 1944. Unless we want to build new ones, there comes a point when it is no longer economically feasible to keep them in service, albeit mothballs. I agree with the CNO, it is time to put these ships out to pasture.
Funny, but the point was that even though the rifle replaced the sword, artillery the elephant, motorized vehicles rplaced the horse cavalry, it still somes down to mano-a-mano.
Technology merely changes the way we kill, it never changes the way you win a war.
They are out to pasture. The point is what do you replace them with, because they still have a function, or do you allow the capability to go by the wayside?
Then even robots will be obsolete.
Face it: You're a Flesh Pie Guy in a Silicon Bagel world.
You're back! Woohoo! Flirting with Dane just isn't the same thing. ;)
The french did that before WWI. Can not remember the things name though.
Not even his wife wants to flirt with him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.