Battleship resurrection thread

>>34753993
Stop fucking making these threads already

>>34753993
I think it might have something to do with missiles having a lot more range than traditional naval guns, I wish big guns were still around as well anon but they just don't have use. Maybe the railgun will change that

>>34754022
Could they be viable as gun boats?
For example, use them to shell a coast, or would missiles be better for that.

What the fuck would you use them for though?

FLATTEN DECK, TAKE AWAY GUNS, LAUNCH AIRCRAFT FROM IT.
/THREAD
KILL YOURSELF OP

>>34754048
As mobile artillery platforms. They deiliver a much larger payload than most ship based missiles. Think of a floating fire base

File: 1495386234011.png (102KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 250x250px

>>34753993
>Upgrading this old ass hull and modifying it to accept these upgrades to bring it up to modern standards
>Less expensive than making a new hull
>Even considering either of these options for a ship class that was obsolete in the fuckin' mid 40's

>>34753993
battlshsips have literally never been worth the cost, manpower, and time needed.
Yes, they're cool. They're also really useless in any type of war.

>>34754046
Well what the fuck are you going to shoot, the only thing they would be in range of is a port or those black cunts who try steal cargo ships

>>34754086
>not wanting to shell Somali pirates with a 2,700 lb shell

Fuck is wrong with you

>>34754062
who needs a larger payload when you have missiles that are accurate to within a foot at 1000 miles?

File: its a battlewagon thread.gif (2MB, 320x239px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x239px

>>34753993
>What is stoping us from modernizing them.

Shit like this

>>34754112
War is about costs more than firepower, you can't just use expensive missiles in a real war.

>>34754709
>you can't just use expensive missiles in a real war.
What?

>>34754689
If proper procedure had been followed instead of sketchy experiments, that wouldn't have happened

>>34753993
Go die in a fire

>>34754709
>you can't just use expensive missiles in a real war

Are you retarded?

If it's a "real war" then costs are out the window and nations will financially cripple themselves to survive.

>>34754952
Maybe China, and only china has the industrial base for produce enough missiles for a real war, US would have a shortage in the first week.

File: destroyer.png (188KB, 656x663px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 656x663px

>>34753993
*destroyers your thread*

>>34754975
Yeah, the solution then is obviously to spend massive resources to build gigantic capital ships that were already obsolete 75 years ago to save a bit on ammo.

>>34754975
Those sure are some backed up facts there

File: 1501345115568.jpg (147KB, 1624x1682px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1624x1682px

...

>>34754062
Just park some SPGs on a container ship and fire away before realising how retarded it is

stop replying or bumping these threads and they'll go away

>>34753993
>What is stoping us from modernizing them.
Finding any of the old cogers alive who even knows the systems. Then ripping everything out while not touching the essential parts, and replacing them. And for what? An outdated, and low-range gunboat?

At that rate, just make a new ship.

>>34753993
when a ship is stuffed and mounted they usually fill the bilge with concrete

we've had this discussion ad nauseum. why dont you go outside and play in traffic.

>>34755483
The last time we refurbished them, someone found the spare barrel liners that were thought to be lost after ww2. Try getting those made nowadays.

>>34754990
sauce?

>>34753993
>What is stoping us from modernizing them

(For the millionths time:) The common sense.

>>34754046
No amount of fancy $million missiles or drones can replace the value of sustained high explosive artillery during a beach landing.

The enemy will have mines and traps and hidden positions. You gotta blast everything over a period of days to soften them up for the Marines

>>34753993
Fuck off.

>>34754086
You shoot the beach anon. And the jungle. And the hillside. And the city.

Battleships are for shooting everything

>>34756373
Why do BB threads tickle so much autism?

>>34756406
Not him, but we have this thread weekly, almost daily, with the same proper explanations. The retard(s) who keep posting are probably doing it for You's

>>34756365
We don't do beach landings anymore though. We literally air land everything in theater unless the beach itself is the obj. for some retarded reason

File: 1501359819865 (1).png (94KB, 2500x1078px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 2500x1078px

>>34753993
*blocks your path*

>>34753993
>What is stoping us from modernizing them.
i guess the whole concept.
guided missile battle-cruisers equipped with dual nuclear plants and railguns are a damn fine idea.
battleships are not.

>>34754070
>that was obsolete in the fuckin' mid 40's
It was not, I will fight you on this.

>>34754077
>They're also really useless in any type of war.
Except when they've contributed greatly everywhere they've been applied.

>>34756365
i think you could easily put several traditional artillery batteries on an aircraft carrier deck for sustained shelling in artillery range. if that is what you want it would cost a tiny tiny tiny fraction of a battleship you could just use available equipment.

>>34757041
>We don't do beach landings anymore though.
We would if we had to.

>>34757723
>battle-cruisers
Good idea.
>battleships
Bad idea.
>?

File: Laser_Defense_System.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>34753993
Laser defense systems.

File: IMG_0842.jpg (35KB, 613x553px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 613x553px

>>34753993

>>34757781
the armor is useless dead weight you can have greater speed with the same firepower and sustained combat capability of a battleship in a battle-cruiser.

it needs some god awful heavy and advanced missile and anti-air defense otherwise it's the too many eggs in one basket thing.

File: USS_Iowa_BB61_Iowa_Explosion_1989.jpg (2MB, 3000x2123px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2123px

>>34753993
>What is stoping us from modernizing them?
Common sense.

>>34757821
and the thing is i don't think you can cost effectively down-armor a battleship. it's probably easier to melt down the whole thing.

>>34755573
I still don't get how the military loses things outright. Don't they have blueprints?

>>34757821
Theoretically, with a missile defense system missiles are no longer a threat in witch case armor is very necessary as conventional arms are then the most likely threat.

>>34754817
If the navy had spent the money needed to bring the rickety tub up to safe standards for service and fixed the dozens of malfunctions in its turrets, including the faulty rammer on turret 2 center gun, it wouldn't have happened either.

>>34757879
1) a good ciws will easily intercept an incoming shell
2) conventional arms will never have a shot at a guided missile cruiser
3) railguns and even modern anti ship size heat warheads will smash through the armor of a battleship like butter no matter how thick you make it. the ship would sink before it could deflect a hit
4) you can't armor against nukes if a ship is expensive enough and invincible enough it's gonna get nuked in war only a matter of time
5) most mbts could penetrate the belt of an iowa at the thickest at 3-4km distance against modern anti-ship guns it would be a joke you are better served with a compartmentalized internal structure high redundancy and no external armor

i think i could go on for a while, but why bother

>>34753993

>it would be less expensive than building a new hull

I'm a fan of battleships too, regardless of their relevance in the modern age, but the surviving battleships are quite old and pretty rusty by this point.

It might be cheaper to re-use the hulls, but what you save from re-using the hulls initially you'd probably spend trying to keep them afloat later on.

>>34757935
1) Perhaps, I'd be interested to see how well it holds up to battle scenarios.
2)Don't be so sure about that.
3)You have a poor understanding of ship armor. While deflection or absorption are ideal penetration is expected and not an end scenario.
4)Castle Bravo, you sure can to varying degrees of success, either way I find the enemies loss of resources worth it.
This brings back my third point, yes the mbt will be able to penetrate but it will not accomplish any significant damage. Also I'm sure new metallurgy techniques could be applied to great effect.

>>34757739
Not him, but they were. The only thing they were good for was shelling beaches

>>34757753
>what is WW2

>>34758046
>Perhaps, I'd be interested to see how well it holds up to battle scenarios.
well think about how incoming ballistic missiles can be intercepted at the terminal phase, a naval cannon shell is not any different.
a guided missile cruiser can sink a ship with a gun from well outside the range (about 10 to 30 times actually) of said guns, and we are not even talking about cruiser missiles yet.
>While deflection or absorption are ideal penetration is expected and not an end scenario.
armor that gets penetrated is often worse than no armor. you can't really justify the weight penalty.
>Also I'm sure new metallurgy techniques could be applied to great effect.
actually no, metallurgy will not help you there which is the reason no tank has steel or titanium or whatever metal armor today. they all have composite armors but lately largely depend on eras and aps because even composite armor can't keep up with the gun and ammunition development let alone missiles. armor is useless i expect a great shift even regarding tanks to light tanks with era and aps and a heavy hitting gun and also heavier hitting ifvs that may defeat these light tanks armor with 40-50 mm auto cannons, with much less focus on fuck expensive mbts that can only survive things from 40 years ago any better. today's active kill systems are getting pretty damn good even against long rod penetrators not just heat and he shells.

If NGS is what you want, why not build a modern version of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erebus-class_monitor

Why put 3000 people on something fucking huge with virtually no real combat use when you can just plonk a turret on a DD sized hull?

Or just put a marine artillery battery on an old LHA or something else with a flat deck no-one's using?

>>34758336
assuming of course that a naval gun is actually cost effective compared to a drone dropping fin guided bombs

>>34758373
Battleship fags will claim drones can be jammed/hacked/shot down/whatever to justify their shitposting. They never have an answer to monitors. (Or marines on a flattop)

>>34758046
1) He's right
2) He's right
3) Why have the armor at all and it can be shot more than once
4) It would never get to the point that you need to nuke a ship
5) Why have the armor at all and it can be shot more than once
>modern metallurgy will do anything to help stop tank rounds
Lmao, you have no idea what you're talking about

>>34754709

The fucking US used over fifty Tomahawks for one shitty airbase in Syria. What the shit you talking about?

>>34754709
>you can't use something on its sole reason for existing

>>34757879
Theoretically, you wouldn't talk about something you know nothing about, yet here you are

>>34754709
That's totally fucking backwards m8. You want cheap shit for plinking insurgents in mud huts. For serious peer-on-peer conflict cost is no object.

>>34757739
Tell that to the IJN

File: heavenly_angel.gif (248KB, 1174x577px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1174x577px

>>34753993

The only thing stopping the US from bring back battleships is that they know it's a complete waste of money. Face it, a heavily armored ship with lots of guns will be used for little else than target practice from some miles off shore. Rail guns will be here soon enough, so massive turrets are unnecessary.

Instead, the USAF and Army should consider bringing back pic related. Unlike battleships, gliders are a cost effective measure to transport troops safely to their designated positions. Whether that's behind enemy lines, or simply a reshuffling of units, the versatility of the glider covers both. In an age of high tech missiles the glider provides strength in numbers potentially produced.

Being made from cheap, light weight materials also means a modern glider will have massive potential for stealth attributes. Does a heat sinking missile target lock a tree? No, didn't think so.

Maybe you need to let go of the old times battleshipbro and jump on the wagon of the future: stealth gliders for troop and light vehicle insertion allowing for a whole new level of disruption behind enemy lines.

>>34756365
>he watched the history channel instead of period ww2 documentaries

When island hopping, naval observers found known positions and adjusted fire onto them, waiting for smoke to clear and shooting at close range in daylight, often taking serious risks to do so. Unaimed fire was almost totally worthless, as a single look at ammunition expenditures or position hardening standards would tell you.
Observers found known

>>34758474
in a proper war where economies of super powers actually have a throw-down cost is pretty damn important. in small skirmishes the us tends to be waging against goatfuckers of varying degree it's actually the more expensive the better because it justifies more military budget expansion and more interesting toys.

>>34758505
Would you like to see them escorted by aerogavins?

>>34758511
In a near-peer war, your ww2-esque attrition of production rates is a dead letter. You fight with what you brought.

>>34758505
i think in the near future space will be the new seas. only powers that have stations and missiles and gunboats in earth orbit will be taken seriously in any conflict, any mud dweller shit no matter how heavily fortified or armored is just target practice for rocks thrown from space.

give it 40 years tops...

>>34756365
That worked OH SO WELL in WW1, didn't it.

>>34758511
In a 'proper war' between superpowers, everyone is dead inside of 48 hours at the absolute most, so the point is moot.

>>34758526
actually the us just made a huge leap in ballistic missile defense capability. in a war with russia it's entirely possible the russians can't rely on their nuclear arsenal at all because it would do them more damage than their opponents. in which case the russians would try to negotiate keeping the conflict not nuclear which would really put a strain on both economies as weapon production rates and costs and gdps would decide it in the end.

Ah yes, the weekly bb-fag containment tread

>>34758532
>everyone is dead inside of 48 hours
this may have been true 50 or even 10 years ago.
not any more. and soon it will be as outdated as the idea of riding into battle on horseback wearing steel plates.

File: glider2b.jpg (2MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1920px

>>34758522

That would be funny, albeit impractical.

>>34758529

The weaponization of space is indeed a concern for all major powers. We will see a gradual, linear increase in weapon systems in space that will likely turn into a different space race. If we avoid nuclear war during that time, then I imagine there will be a slew of non-proliferation treaties that try to mitigate that.

However, this is a discussion for another time. Right now we should be discussing how to call our congressman to get them to back a return of a glider force.

>>34758573
So how long WOULD it take to nuke every major population center off the face of the earth, general?

>>34757874
>we still have blueprints!
>Ok, lets create the tooling to produce obsolete equipment for an obsolete ship!

File: 1501707553456.jpg (45KB, 134x306px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 134x306px

>mfw glider-fag and bb-fag in the same tread

>>34758505
Shitpost thread!

>>34758591
you can't. ballistic nuclear missiles can be intercepted even in the terminal phase now by even destroyers which means the us can protect it's allies too to a degree.

mutually assured destruction and attacking the heart of the enemy is no longer a thing.

>>34758637
>this is what retards actually believe

>>34757874
Also happens a lot at the end of wars. Reduction of funding and the lack of need means a lot projects get dropped and things disappear. A good example of this is the T95

>>34758643
you still live in the 60's huh?

>>34758661
Show me a source.

File: RAIN-Logistics-Glider-slider2-768x441.png (174KB, 768x441px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 768x441px

>>34758505
Never go full mike sparks. Modern troops are too expensive to be expendable.

This is what a modern glider is good for.

>>34758694
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/14/politics/us-north-korea-aegis-ballistic-missile-defense/index.html

>>34758579
Okay, so what if we take these gliders and attach engines to them? That way they don't need additional aircraft to be used.

>>34758729
> Aegis BMD does not have the ability to intercept ICBMs

Taken straight out of the source you provided, friend.

>>34758731
then they make noise and heat and can carry less cargo because of the weight of motors and fuel?

>>34755573

Funny thing, we still have the stuff to make the barrels completely. The plant that makes the guns for our artillery still has the vertical furnaces for forging those 16" barrels.

>>34758749
well they can't outright admit it because the ABM treaty and the vatnik butthurt, but us has the capability demonstrated that they can intercept an icmb at any part of it's trajectory.

but even if that was turned out to be an overstatement it wouldn't be in an other few years seeing how the program progressed.

in a future world war it's entirely possible the quick annihilation would turn out to be a fudge.

>>34758750
Nah, you simply only carry enough fuel for the glider to get airborne. Once aloft, you jettison the engine, which is retrieved by personnel at the base you just left, then fly to your destination at which point a new engine is attached for the return flight.

>>34755387
No they won't

>>34758808
interesting solution, but if you jettison the engine wouldn't it be simpler (and quicker to retrieve) to have an engine on wings and make it land?

why do you people reply to these threads

>>34758857
I have nothing better to do

>>34758843
We're trying to maximize cargo capacity while minimizing weight and emissions. What if instead the engine is a parasitized glider attached to the glider? It brings the glider to altitude, detaches, then glides alongside the glider to the destination?

>>34758046
>1) Perhaps, I'd be interested to see how well it holds up to battle scenarios.

those shells fly at mach 3 and if they're anything like 5" shells, easy as fuck to track with modern radar.

>2)Don't be so sure about that.

it's entirely dependent on who knows where who is. if aforementioned cruiser has a scan eagle crew on board, they'll know where that BB is fairly quickly.

>3)You have a poor understanding of ship armor. While deflection or absorption are ideal penetration is expected and not an end scenario.

when you're talking about AShM that are built to split the keel of a ship when they penetrate, yes, it is an end scenario.

>4)Castle Bravo, you sure can to varying degrees of success, either way I find the enemies loss of resources worth it.

do you mean the loss of a nuke? because that's the only resource they're gonna loose.

>yes the mbt will be able to penetrate but it will not accomplish any significant damage

you clearly know nothing of modern torpedoes.

>Also I'm sure new metallurgy techniques could be applied to great effect.

sure, that's why all modern warships are heavily armored.

>>34758654
>"In 1974 the last prototype was discovered abandoned in a field at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. It is unknown where it spent the intervening 27 years. "

I wanna watch a cartoon about T95 adventures.

>>34759097
>I wanna watch a cartoon about T95 adventures.
fund this!

>>34759143
Imagine this monstrously huge tank driving around the country side, then hiding comically behind trees and stuff when the army MPs drive around in jeeps looking for it.

>>34759165
Tom Hanks or someone similar voices the army colonel tasked with bringing the tank back. Every so often he catches it and the tank escapes right when his superiors show up to bring it back.

>>34759165
you could also put him on a cargo ship where he would dispatch pirates and eventually made it to the shores of japan where he was intended to go but the war is already over and japs disarmed and got all weird.

>>34758238
>Not him, but they were. The only thing they were good for was shelling beaches
Shelling beaches, shelling other ships and anti-air.
>>34758250
A conflict between several nations.

>>34758288
>a naval cannon shell is not any different.
It has a significantly thicker casing.
>a guided missile cruiser can sink a ship with a gun from well outside the range (about 10 to 30 times actually)
Yes it can, but of course there are other factors to consider.
>armor that gets penetrated is often worse than no armor. you can't really justify the weight penalty.
This is reasoning that has proven to be dangerous and ineffective. This is the reason soldiers went without any protection for hundreds of years and why British troops wore tin hats in WWI, any protection is better than no protection.
>actually no
Actually yes, Boeing has made some interesting discoveries lately, that and composites and what not, I expect larger platforms will be developed while still being lighter with these developments, and you're also stuck with the archaic notion that armor has to stop a missile when it can be intercepted entirely.

>>34758475
The IJN had subpar designs, poor quality of ships and sailors and it's command coouldn't commit assets appropriately.

>>34758404
>>34758451
Two posts that contribute nothing to the conversation other than wasting posts.

>>34758505
>little else than target practice from some miles off shore
Lasers.

>>34759015
>those shells fly at mach 3 and if they're anything like 5" shells, easy as fuck to track with modern radar.
Yes you can see it, but can you stop it?
>it's entirely dependent on who knows where who is. if aforementioned cruiser has a scan eagle crew on board, they'll know where that BB is fairly quickly.
They can see it but can they hurt it?
>when you're talking about AShM that are built to split the keel of a ship when they penetrate, yes, it is an end scenario.
Built to split the keel of an un-armored ship.
>do you mean the loss of a nuke? because that's the only resource they're gonna loose.
Correct.
>you clearly know nothing of modern torpedoes.
What do torpedoes have to do with tanks?
>sure, that's why all modern warships are heavily armored.
No that has to do with the DoN saying it's unnecessary.

>>34756365

>What is air strikes
>What is attack helicopters

File: 1484955100196.gif (404KB, 342x342px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 342x342px

>>34754099
>mfw playing real life battleship against Somalian pirates
This is the only valid point in this thread. Fuck any modern military use for the things, but a ship mounted fuck huge gun is just fun.

>>34760270
>I know ships better than DoN
You autists are so cute.

>>34760270
>Yes you can see it, but can you stop it?

Depends, how well do you think the 3in casing of a Mark 13 shell will stand up to 20mm autocannon rounds?

>>34760455
This would be sufficiently amusing to justify the effort.

>>34760712
Fairly well.

>>34758591
>he thinks a nuclear war would just be nuking every population center

File: 1495759090833.gif (143KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 500x375px

>>34753993
hang yourself with barbed wire

>>34760787
Okay, let's rephrase. How do you think the 3in steel casing of a Mark 13 shell will stand up to 20mm APDS autocannon rounds?

>>34754062
Thats why god made attack aircraft.

>>34761160
Fairly well.

>>34760170
>This is reasoning that has proven to be dangerous and ineffective. This is the reason soldiers went without any protection for hundreds of years and why British troops wore tin hats in WWI, any protection is better than no protection.

Except that body armor doesnt get penetrated most of the time, hence why it is worth the weight. The reason soldiers didnt have it befoee was because it was both incredibly uneconomical to give every soldier armor and because sokdiers were nit largely mechanized and airborne. If the enemy was touting minimum .50 cals as infantry rifles the response would be to remove armor, not add more.

File: 1494181851890.png (109KB, 494x352px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 494x352px

>>34761190
Thats because you're a retard.

>>34761380
There were many reasons, such as viewing armor as cowardly, cuiresses were effecgtive even up to the US civil war (to varying degrees, there was no standard pattern or quality control as each soldier had to pay out of pocket). Also people are not comprable to machines. And while your answer would be to remove mine is to add, we'll see which is more effective.

>>34761407
Are insults and crude pictures all you have left?

File: WNUS_16-50_mk7_Missouri_projectiles_flight.jpg (40KB, 650x451px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 650x451px

>>34757592
nothing personnel, kid

>>34761459
>>34761449
First off, I am a different anon. I am insultinf you because I think youre an idiot, if you were wondering.

Secondly, you were the one who compared men to machines, I just showed that your comparison was asinine and didnt support your argument at all. What wiuld you add to infantry to make them .50 resistant? 80lb plates front and back? Imagine doing the same to a ship. Adding enough mass to stop a missile is simply impractical, and will not prevent damage and destruction of the vessel.

For infantry, lugging around armor is useful because it will moat likely save your ass if it gets shot. The same does not apply for ships.

>>34761862
>Secondly, you were the one who compared men to machines,
At what point?
>What wiuld you add to infantry to make them .50 resistant? 80lb plates front and back?
Thick slabs of metal and composites on carts they can hide behind.
>Adding enough mass to stop a missile is simply impractical
Not if it works.
>and will not prevent damage and destruction of the vessel.
Unless it does.
>For infantry, lugging around armor is useful because it will moat likely save your ass if it gets shot. The same does not apply for ships.
But of course it does.

>>34761160
>>34761407
>25 mm DU APDS can't even make it through 2.5" RHA but you expect 20 mm tungsten APDS to make it through 3.25" of shell steel inclined at nearly 80 degrees from the normal but the other guy is the retard

What the fuck am I reading?

>>34762061
That would depend entirely on the properties of the steel being used for the shell casing.

>>34757592
>High value target

>>34762106

HF is usually processed to exactly the same BHN (or higher) than US RHA test plates.

Not that it fucking matters since even if it was 2" thick the line-of-sight thickness at 79 degrees is over ten fucking inches.

>>34754709
>War is about costs more than firepower, you can't just use expensive missiles in a real war.
Nigga the missiles are already built, they'll literally expire if we don't fucking use them.

>>34753993
Why try to repurpose decrepit ships?
>Launch all aircraft off the LHD
>Pick up artillery pieces with CH-53's
>Put them on LHD flight deck
>?
>Profit

>>34753993
>psychological affects
First off it's EFFECTS, go learn the difference
Second that's never a reason to build anything ever

Sage

>>34761973
>durr, when
When you brought up infantry as a doctrinal justification for the lack of armor on ships because you're an idiot.

>Thick slabs of metal and composites on carts they can hide behind.
So, armored fighting vehicles which the infantry are forced to hide behind, thus defeating the point of having them at all. Please neck yourself.

>unless it does
Not an argument. Armor reduces reserve buoyancy, meaning holes poked in it will be much more severe flooding hazards and much harder to repair than normal holes. And there will be holes, because a 1000lb HEAT warhead could make a hole in twenty meters of steel a meter wide without a problem.

>>34762061
Its not about penetration, unless the round was designed by idiors who couldnt use modern explosives. More important is potentially tumbling the round, which reduces effective thickness. Frankly, Phalanx can eat a duck for the most part, I dont know why the one anon is obsessed with it.

Any intercetor missile, on the other hand, will at the very least fragment the round, if not detonate it with just the impact. Youre only gonna have to shoot down every hundredth round or so anyway, and youd kill the BB before it got off that many.

>>34760170
armors of that era did make things worse when hit by battle rifles.
its not that nobofy had the bright ida they tridd and the concept failed pre kevlar.