Battleship is not obsolete

Is the battleship obsolete?

  • Battleship is obsolete

    Votes: 33 50.8%

  • Battleship is not obsolete

    Votes: 28 43.1%

  • I don't know and I don't care

    Votes: 4 6.2%
  • Total voters
    65
Korean Seaboy

Korean Seaboy

Active member
Well, since the end of WWII, the power of the battleship have been questioned, with many believing that the Aircraft Carrier is the replacement as the main ship. However, some people and I believe that the battleship will return. Although there is no evidence to prove this, I still firmly believe it.


:9mm: :biggun:
:m16shoot: :biggun:
:sniper: :biggun:
:2guns: :biggun:
:stupid:
THE GANGSTER SHOOTOUT!!!!
:tank:
THEN THE STATE TROOPERS WITH THE TANKS COME IN!!!
:drunkb:
BUT THE SOLDIERS WERE DRUNK AND THEY PARTYED!!!!​
 
The Marines regretted the retirement of the battleships. No other ship could deliver the devastating fire power of the battleship. Unfortunately, the problem with battleships is that they are extremely expensive to operate. They require a huge crew, fuel and an escort complement that equals that of a carrier. I wonder if we can return to a 10,000 ton ocean going armored platform like the Graf Spee except with one turret or even a fast monitor?
 
The idea is that EM railguns will achieve the hitting power and rate of fire of the former battleships, and will be mountable on much smaller platforms.
 
I am liking the railgun. Someone at BAE has been playing quake.... In all seriousness I am wondering what material is used in the barrell. That will probably be more of a achievement than the weapon itself.
 
Kevlar was once cutting edge high tech stuff... a miracle fiber.
As for the rail gun... it's going to need one hell of a coolant.
 
What happened to the DDX program, the one with the special 5" with satellite guided shells that was designed for ground support? Did that get axed or is it still in planning?
 
mmarsh said:
What happened to the DDX program, the one with the special 5" with satellite guided shells that was designed for ground support? Did that get axed or is it still in planning?
Click to expand...

It's still around as DDG-1000, but we're only planning on building two or three as a means of testing future designs.

And, I'm sure whatever they're using for the rails is pretty highly classified ;)
 
It will no doubt be a mix of heavy elements at the bottom of the periodic table. It has the potential to change allot of things. Hopefully it's not classified for too long.
 
I know the US scrapped the ability to make barrels bigger than 8". Is there any capacity still in existance, if not the whole thing is moot.
 
The size of the barrel is not the issue. The problem is pushing a piece of metal out of metal at 4,000 mph. That type of friction and heats melts current day materials.
 
They'll probably have to water cool it with sea water as well.
Then you have to deal with warping... or else you'll have a really bad rate of fire on that thing.
 
Big_Z said:
The size of the barrel is not the issue. The problem is pushing a piece of metal out of metal at 4,000 mph. That type of friction and heats melts current day materials.
Click to expand...
Original subject was/is Battleships & 8" or less isn't a Battleship, traditionaly speaking.
 
Personally I'd rather see a Battleship that a rail gun, I remember desert storm with the U.S.S Wisconsin sitting 20 miles off the coast lobbing 16" shells right on top of whatever target was picked. trust me theres NOTHING that will ever compare to a Battleship :)
Call them obsolete, but remember what England did to the Bismark with an obsolete airplane.
 
yes i think their gone for good. but sorely missed. we had the New Jersey in Nam. here's a photo of her coming alongside an ammo ship i served on. the south china sea

rr7dcj.jpg


they were built for a wartime economy. this one, i was told cost a million US a day to just keep afloat and operating.​
 
wolfen said:
Personally I'd rather see a Battleship that a rail gun, I remember desert storm with the U.S.S Wisconsin sitting 20 miles off the coast lobbing 16" shells right on top of whatever target was picked. trust me theres NOTHING that will ever compare to a Battleship :)
Click to expand...

Oh,... but there is. There are many more cost effective, and far more accurate and powerful weapons delivery systems today.

Sometimes useful?,.... Maybe.

Obsolete?,.... Most definitely.

They are modern day Monitors.
 
Last edited:
senojekips said:
Oh,... but there is. There are many more cost effective, and far more accurate and powerful weapons delivery systems today.

Sometimes useful?,.... Maybe.

Obsolete?,.... Most definitely.

They are modern day Monitors.
Click to expand...

There is? I gotta see it in action to believe it. ICBM's don;t count either, neither do space based laser platforms or missile platforms
 
Try looking at the latest developments precision guided munitions and their delivery systems, or at cruise missiles, and then working out the cost of running a battleship and keeping it in the AO, while remembering that when the battleship is not actually engaging the enemy (which is probably less than 1 or 2% of the time on the line) it is still costing a squillion dollars a day just in running costs.

On top of which is the accuracy and range question. Modern weapons can give an individual enemy soldier an RDX enema from 600 miles plus.

If it were not for these things, the battle wagons would still be being built. Billy Mitchell showed exactly how vulnerable they were to air attack at the end of WWII and it has only got worse, a lot,... lot worse.
 
Last edited:
Just a point Spike, Mitchell showed that Battle Wagons were vunerable to air attack after WWI.;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top