"Why No Heavy Naval Guns"?

PhotEx

On ROPS
On ROPs
Dive bombing most definitely was the best was of using air.

however, coming back to weapons of the time. Weren’t aerial torpedoes always designed to explode on contact? I.e the use of torpedoes that either targeted to vulnerable screws or exploded directly underneath the boat overcoming ten troublesome torpedo bikers weren’t very effective.

I guess battleships would be nice to have but they’re pretty limited. Ship on ship and shore bombardment.

a carrier gives you the ability to do ship on ship via its aircraft. Shore bombardment, tactical strikes further in land and ASW.

often the decisions come down to cost. More versatile and adaptable platforms
Means more flexibility.

The Battleships last hurrah was the Battle of the Surigao Strait in 1944.

Rather fittingly, it was fought by Admiral Oldendorf’s ancient WWI era battlewagons against Admiral Nishimura's ancient WWI era battlewagons.
A classic crossing the T action, a rather fitting end to the era of the big gun ship.
 
…..and the fact that the guns out ranged anything on land. But admittedly they had limited use.

2 x 15 inch guns.
HMS_Terror_%28I03%29.jpg


2 x 12 inch and 1 x 18 inch guns.
The_Surrender_of_the_German_High_Seas_Fleet%2C_November_1918_Q19296.jpg


There were larger numbers with 6, 7.5, or 8 inch guns.

They used whatever they had available from spares or saved from scrapped battleships or cruisers. Monitors tended to be built as needed with most of them scrapped when the war was over.

We've thrashed this issue out multiple times before on this and other threads, If you really needed the sort of shore bombardment capability today that a battleship used to provide then today you would use rocket artillery on a converted commercial ship of some sort.
 

Hohenidoom

Old-Salt
The Battleships last hurrah was the Battle of the Surigao Strait in 1944.

Rather fittingly, it was fought by Admiral Oldendorf’s ancient WWI era battlewagons against Admiral Nishimura's ancient WWI era battlewagons.
A classic crossing the T action, a rather fitting end to the era of the big gun ship.

If one were to be pedantic, wasn't Fuso sunk before she even got into site of the American battleline?

I certainly wouldn't have wanted to be on either of the Japanese BBs that night.
 
Monitors were more practical for shore bombardment than battleships. The only reason that they used old battleships for the job was because they had them.
I’m sending from the lecture that they missed the fact that battleships were used in WW2 because they had them.

quite an interesting discussion at the end about the use of Arsenal ships to replace battleships in general modern day.

I have to be honest, I don’t know that these days with the advent of long range stand off weapons system there’s not a need for a cheep as chips ship built on commercial lines with a hoofing arrows of TLAMS or similar that can be sailed to an extreme distance off a coast and unload.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
If one were to be pedantic, wasn't Fuso sunk before she even got into site of the American battleline?

She made it through the PT boat screen, but the destroyer attacks got enough torpedoes into her to sink her, and more badly damaged Yamashiro. It seems, from most accounts, that Yamashiro got heavily shelled, with multiple fires and much of her armament out of actions - but was finished off by more destroyer torpedoes.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
I have to be honest, I don’t know that these days with the advent of long range stand off weapons system there’s not a need for a cheep as chips ship built on commercial lines with a hoofing arrows of TLAMS or similar that can be sailed to an extreme distance off a coast and unload.
Been doing the rounds for a long time - a quarter century ago the proposal was for an "arsenal ship" doing exactly that.

The problems are (a) you need the comms and command fit to manage and control all those weapons, and (b) the ship may be cheap, the massive load of advanced weapons aren't and make it a very high value target - so it makes sense to have the ship able to defend itself and survive a fight... which means the ship's no longer cheap and simple.
 
2 x 15 inch guns.
HMS_Terror_%28I03%29.jpg


2 x 12 inch and 1 x 18 inch guns.
The_Surrender_of_the_German_High_Seas_Fleet%2C_November_1918_Q19296.jpg


There were larger numbers with 6, 7.5, or 8 inch guns.

They used whatever they had available from spares or saved from scrapped battleships or cruisers. Monitors tended to be built as needed with most of them scrapped when the war was over.

We've thrashed this issue out multiple times before on this and other threads, If you really needed the sort of shore bombardment capability today that a battleship used to provide then today you would use rocket artillery on a converted commercial ship of some sort.
Ah you’ve latched on to my thought process. Of course the battle wagons had more of each, than the monitors, but the Germans used their remaining eight and six inchers to bombard the Russians. The Monitors advantage was shallower draught. Nor is it to be said that some sort of rocket battery was out of the question then. I don’t disagree with your concept merely pointing out that in terms of mobile fire power they had their uses.
 
Been doing the rounds for a long time - a quarter century ago the proposal was for an "arsenal ship" doing exactly that.

The problems are (a) you need the comms and command fit to manage and control all those weapons, and (b) the ship may be cheap, the massive load of advanced weapons aren't and make it a very high value target - so it makes sense to have the ship able to defend itself and survive a fight... which means the ship's no longer cheap and simple.
Here’s a genuine question though.

can you not just bolt this stuff on STUFT ships with a modular comms kit. A bit like a more modern Landing craft Rocket.
 
Here’s a genuine question though.

can you not just bolt this stuff on STUFT ships with a modular comms kit. A bit like a more modern Landing craft Rocket.
These days there are very few modern merchant ships that have large open decks you could park an MLRS on or so forth.
Container ships holds a long way below the upper deck as well.
 
These days there are very few modern merchant ships that have large open decks you could park an MLRS on or so forth.
Container ships holds a long way below the upper deck as well.
But they suffer from being a bit vulnerable to the common ASM.
Does any country in the world today actually have something in its arsenal that can penetrate the armour of a battleship? That is, below a nuclear bomb.
 
I'd make a guess at (in no particular order of seniority)

1/ size, cost and complexity of the system
2/ maintenance nightmares
3/ logistics footprint required to make worthwhile use of it
4/ the set-up/tear-down time needed and it therefore it being highly vulnerable to counter-battery fire
5/ not-invented-here syndrome and preservation of the status quo.
Since the proposed plan for a 'like an auto loader but not' for the AS90 was scrapped on the grounds of complexity, reliability, not Sporting, Not invented here and cost by the RA......

I can't remember what the proposed system looked like but it was intended to push the burst rate up to 6 or 9 rounds before the SPG f**ked off from a suddenly very dangerous piece of land to rebomb.

The plan may have been, if memory is not dribbling, to fit said system once all the kinks with the scrapped longer barrel were worked out...
 
Last edited:

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Misses the key point that battleships lacked range of effect: highlighting how it took many sorties of carrier aviation to sink Japanese battleships, ignores the point that the carriers were delivering these attacks from a hundred-plus miles away, at virtually zero risk to themselves. Being able to administer a stern kicking to the enemy, without being attacked in return, is a great advantage.

An analogy is a match-up between a man in plate armour with a poll-axe and a musketeer... the armoured man is far more likely to win a hand-to-hand fight. But, how does he get close enough to the musketeer to come to blows, and how many musket balls can his armour withstand before one gets through with painful effect?

I'd agree with that, current thinking in academia boils down to this, Carriers gave you strategic reach, strike capability and long range situational awareness, but Battleships were the tool of sea control (from '41 onwards) So while the battleship was knocked off it's perch as big dog, they still had a significant role throughout the conflict, and the need for such ships was never truly eclipsed
 
But they suffer from being a bit vulnerable to the common ASM.
Does any country in the world today actually have something in its arsenal that can penetrate the armour of a battleship? That is, below a nuclear bomb.
I imagine an ASM hit would hurt it - lot of kinetic energy there.

Then theres Spearfish - wont penetrate armour as such - but I bet it will cause lots of mischief below the waterline
 
So while the battleship was knocked off it's perch as big dog, they still had a significant role throughout the conflict, and the need for such ships was never truly eclipsed
Right up until 1943, when Fritz-X and Hs293 demonstrated that battleships were just a good way to get 2,000 sailors into the water at once; with the Royal Navy not commissioning any new battleships after 1946, and binning every single one of them by the 1950s (sooner, in many cases).
 

PhotEx

On ROPS
On ROPs
But they suffer from being a bit vulnerable to the common ASM.
Does any country in the world today actually have something in its arsenal that can penetrate the armour of a battleship? That is, below a nuclear bomb.

Most of the bigger Russian ASMs will go through a battleships armour like a hot knife through butter.

Think 1 tonne RPG warhead.
 

PhotEx

On ROPS
On ROPs
I'd agree with that, current thinking in academia boils down to this, Carriers gave you strategic reach, strike capability and long range situational awareness, but Battleships were the tool of sea control (from '41 onwards) So while the battleship was knocked off it's perch as big dog, they still had a significant role throughout the conflict, and the need for such ships was never truly eclipsed

the main role of battleships from 1942 was to act as huge AA platforms to protect the carriers.
see the newsreel footage of USN BB’s with a hundred plus 20mm, 40mm and 5” guns sailing in close formation with carriers under air attack.
 
But they suffer from being a bit vulnerable to the common ASM.
Does any country in the world today actually have something in its arsenal that can penetrate the armour of a battleship? That is, below a nuclear bomb.
I believe anybody with a torpedo that explodes underneath the ship instead of the side of it.

once again, you end up with a very expensive, heavily brewed mobile target.

I can’t help but think we could do with some low crew levelled, cheap as chips corvettes types.

I do find it odd that we’re discussing a platform that we got rid of. It’s almost like things go full circle
 
Right up until 1943, when Fritz-X and Hs293 demonstrated that battleships were just a good way to get 2,000 sailors into the water at once; with the Royal Navy not commissioning any new battleships after 1946, and binning every single one of them by the 1950s (sooner, in many cases).
Yers true enough, but perhaps we shouldn't overlook that the war had just finished, up to our Auxters in financial pooh and 'er Labour were in power. So I don't think it was just a case of strategic thinking. One of the things that sets me that way was that the Yanks kept on commissioning and decommissioning the Iowas and yep they bolted missiles to 'em and used them until quite recently. Yes they make humungous targets but no more so than Aircraft carriers and we only have two. You only need Sods and Murphy's law and a heavy dose of shit creek......
 

PhotEx

On ROPS
On ROPs
Yers true enough, but perhaps we shouldn't overlook that the war had just finished, up to our Auxters in financial pooh and 'er Labour were in power. So I don't think it was just a case of strategic thinking. One of the things that sets me that way was that the Yanks kept on commissioning and decommissioning the Iowas and yep they bolted missiles to 'em and used them until quite recently. Yes they make humungous targets but no more so than Aircraft carriers and we only have two. You only need Sods and Murphy's law and a heavy dose of shit creek......

The Iowas armed with nuclear tipped TLAMs were bait to force the Soviets to come out and fight - and be destroyed. They were hard enough targets to require substantial forces to attempt to neutralise them.
 

Latest Threads

Top