|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events General Discussion Restoring Battleships|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
New Member |
The one argument against battleships is there attack from aircraft, or torpedos. Name me one ship that is immune from the same form of attack.
Putting a lone battleship in this type of scenerio is unfair. During WW2 we lost more carriers than battleships. Give'em a escort carrier, they'll prove there worth. |
||
|
"I love the smell of Brown Water in the morning" |
But what would be the point? Except as a large (very) gun platform and certainly the psycological affect what can they do that can't be carried out by other assets? The Navy has brought two (I think) BB out of mothballs since Nam (correct me if I'm wrong). As I recall perhaps the biggest problem was finding crews to man them not to mention the expense of fueling them. As a former swabbie I understand the feeling of strength and pride the BB's instill in us but I fear their day is past. |
|||
|
Highly Experienced Member |
It was actually 4 they brought out of mothballs: Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri, and I forget the fourth. You are correct though the staffing of them was the most horrendous cost along with all the diesel they used and their limited role.
|
|||
|
New Member |
The fourth battleship was the USS New Jersey (BB-62).
|
|||
|
shoot on sight |
Here's a short guide to the history of US battleships. The last paragraph pretty much sums up their limitations
Battle Ship History |
|||
|
|
The Grumpy Submarine Troll  |
My father thinks pulling the battleships out would be a waste of time and money. He served on the USS Wisconsin during the Korean War. He also helped bring out the USS Iowa out when he was in the reserves. In this day and age and the types of conflicts we are involved in we no longer need the big guns. What navy do we have to fight? What country that we are having problems have a long coastline?
|
|||
|
|
shoot on sight |
The Navy subs are now equiped with Tomahawk Cruise missles. They can be launched from Florida and tag a specific WINDOW in a house in Maine! They can be tipped with all sorts of nasty. Of course the aircraft on carriers can put alot of hurt on an enemy as well. That not to mention the other the types of cruisers and such. They are just more effcient than a battleship. |
|||
|
|
"I love the smell of Brown Water in the morning" |
I'm pretty sure only the Iowa and one other (New Jersey?) were recommissioned for a brief time. |
|||
|
|
New Member |
I saw this on a TV program a few years back...
They used illustrations to show how well a BB could target locations on land. Then, for the price and manpower of 1 battleship, they showed many smaller ships (destroyer's, probably) targeting like 12X times as many targets, and firing their smaller guns faster. But I do find it interesting that someone mentioned "the kind of wars we are fighting now." Someone, I think Billy Mitchell, once said "We often try to base the tactics and equipment of our next war on the basis of the last. But the next war never looks like the previous one." Or something like that. |
|||
|
Member |
Unfortunately, I believe the day of the battleship has come and gone. They were awesome vessels during their time though....
|
|||
|
|
New Member |
All 4 battleships were recommisioned as part of the 600 ship Navy back in the 1980's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_class_battleship |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
No Essex class carriers were sunk during WWII. None. |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
I'm for it! Anyone ever see the New Jersey "live fire"? Man! How could you not be for that!!
 |
|||
|
|
New Member |
The Wasp, Hornet, Yorktown, and Lex, though not Essex-class, WERE aircraft carriers and sunk. And they were under steam at the time, not tied-up like the Arizona and Oklahoma.
|
|||
|
|
New Member |
Any weapon that can be put aboard a cruiser, or destroyer, will certainly fit on a battleship. Refit a BB with similar weapons that are on the 'newer and more powerful cruisers'(?), put both in the same tub, and tell me which you'd rather be on if the shooting started?
Reguarding finding crews to operate on BB's . . .we had 'em before,but it required training, much like any operation does on a ship. Not just anyone can jump in a jet and take to the skies. That takes training too. And the cost of operating a BB. . .Who cares? When was the military ever concerned with economics??? |
|||
|
|
Member |
lingcod9....OK, I like your history lesson, but so what? The carriers (and their embarked air wings) sailed directly into harm's way...What does that have to do with "Restoring Battleships"?, it isn't going to happen regardless of how remarkable these vessels were in their day.....
|
|||
|
|
"I love the smell of Brown Water in the morning" |
I agree but damn weren't they the grandest ladies in the fleet? Truly the high point in US Naval history. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Raunchy, no doubt about it....
|
|||
|
Member |
No, all four were recommissioned as I knew folks who were assigned to the Wisconsin and the Missouri was photographed with several Nimitz class carriers. If you read the history above, you would have seen that both the Missouri and the Wisconsin participated in DS1 in 1991. |
|||
|
|
Member |
The old propulsion systems alone are a reason to not bring them back as it would cost more than a couple of new ships to refit the engines on those old ships. Yes, I would choose to sail aboard a BB before any other vessel if I was still in, but then again, I volunteered to give up E-6 if they would station me aboard the Wisconsin back in 1988, but I was beat out by a Chief (E-7) who went back two ranks to E-5 and got the job. The photo lab was right over the rear turret, which made for interesting problems when they fired those guns from what I have been told. |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 3 4 ... 24 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events General Discussion Restoring Battleships
