RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/23/2005 11:52:13 PM

LeatherneckIllini

Posts: 11
Joined: 8/7/2004
Status: offline

Couple things:

1. It hadn't come up yet but as of 6 years ago the New Jersey's hull was cracked so its no longer good to come back. The Iowa, which was drydocked at Newport, RI when I was there, suffered severe damage from that turret explosion years ago and would need $$$ to come on line. Thats why the Whisky and the Big 'Mo are the only two option.

2. A few years ago there was an idea to have "arsenal" ships which were basically nothing more than floating gun platforms loaded out with a gazillion missles/rockets and guns. IMO if the USMC and the USN want a pure combat support ship that's the way to go. Besides, with $300,000,000,000 already spent on Iraq there's no more $ to bring one of these monsters back. You can get far more bang for the buck elsewhere.

3. We don't need a BB or 2 to protect Taiwan. In fact, if we had any cajones, we'd let them put 1,000,000 ashore before we sank their fleet and grounded there air. I'd like to see them fight with no bullets, food or gas.

< Message edited by LeatherneckIllini -- 4/23/2005 11:54:44 PM >

(in reply to DeepSix)

Post #: 121

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/24/2005 12:59:27 AM

wild_Willie2

Posts: 2934
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Arnhem (holland) yes a bridge to far...
Status: offline

They will just scream " BANZAI" (or what ever the chinese version is) and shock attack the island

_____________________________

In vinum illic est sapientia , in matera illic est vires , in aqua illic es bacteria.

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria.

(in reply to LeatherneckIllini)

Post #: 122

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/24/2005 1:38:50 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

Then what happens? The World CTD's in the ngiht fighter intercept phase, and God uninstall's World 1.4 from his hard drive?

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to wild_Willie2)

Post #: 123

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/24/2005 4:34:24 AM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Then what happens? The World CTD's in the ngiht fighter intercept phase, and God uninstall's World 1.4 from his hard drive?

Hey, maybe God can just patch to World 1.5 and continue the current game without changing the OOB!

_____________________________

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 124

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/24/2005 5:45:03 PM

Lord_Calidor

Posts: 402
Joined: 3/25/2005
From: Rijeka, CRO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
Hey, maybe God can just patch to World 1.5 and continue the current game without changing the OOB!

That depends if Mike & guys finish v1.5 before the invasion.

_____________________________

But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage.

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 125

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/24/2005 9:35:34 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

The issue is not what the ships could do or how effective they were but the cost of doing it vs the results. The ships were trememdously expensive and that is why the experiment was considered a total failure by most military appraisals of the situation.

Do you know how much fuel they eat? How much it costs to feed and suport the massive crew compliment? The logistics of maintain the equipment on board. Just sitting at the dock doing nothing those monsters ate money, and that is what they did most of the time, nothing.

Im not sure but I think they only fired a few hundred shells in combat-perhaps less. Anyone remember?

So you could cower some militiman with the threat of sixteen inch shells. You could threaten them with neutron bombs as well. But is it worth the cost to kill of a few milita men? No.

It was a total piss off of good money that could have gone to more serious weapons. That is the point. I don't think you are going to find many people who agree that it was anywhere near cost effective.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joliverlay

Regarding the idea that the recommissioning of the ships was a waste. Ask the marines what the response of the militia in Lebonon was when a single shell from that ship was fired on their positions. How many sorties do you think it would take by aircraft to deliver the ordinance of a 20 min bombardment by Iowa?

Mission? how much of the worlds industry is within 5-10 miles of the coast.

For those of you who say the shells could be shot down by phlanx or equivlanet, I would say, how many? A salvo of several shells fired over a few min. would be more difficult to stop.

The argument that they would be vulnerable to modern surface to surface missles. Are you kidding? These weapons dont carry the penetrating payload of 16 in shells. The Sheffiled was killed by SSMs that would not even damage Iowa.

A major SSM strike would likely have perhaps 30 missles in a salvo (from several ships or aircraft) which would then require significant reload.

The BBs have a mission. 1. Shore bombardment. 2. Absorb hits for the CV. If somone fires a slavo of ssm at a CV task force put the BB in the flight path and let her do her duty. There is even a good chance she will survive.

Yes they are old. But NOTHING in the modern fleets has a fraction of the resistance to moderns SSMs as a BB. Just make sure the task force is well escorted by SSNs.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to joliverlay)

Post #: 126

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/24/2005 11:30:07 PM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

Feinder hit on something I'm surprised that no one else has: the need to replace the tubes after so many rounds have been fired through them. How many new tubes do we have remaining for those big guns? How costly would it be to manufacture new ones? As much as I love the BBs, and I certainly believe that they have a greater survivability than any other surface ships, I'm not sure that we can afford to keep bringing them back into service.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 127

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/25/2005 1:58:05 AM

Iridium

Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline

The cost of a Tomahawk missle was $569,000 the last I checked. Missle Link

So are we thinking about the cost of these missles when we consider the overall cost of maintaining a vessel vs firing off a bunch of expensive single use units?

I agree the old Iowa class ships are done in terms of service. I think that the US Navy should be looking at getting some new gun ships that have the same bombardment capabilities but have much cheaper overhead due to technical innovations over the years. Missles are not the answer to everything, plus why destroy something for 500k when you can do it for 15k in ordinance?

This subject has been beaten to death, there are pro's and con's to both sides of the arguement.

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 128

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/25/2005 2:18:05 AM

freeboy

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

why use a ship when a guided bomg dropped from high altitude air is cost effective and VERY efficient in terms of rapid ready deployment?

(in reply to Iridium)

Post #: 129

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/26/2005 2:55:34 AM

byron13

Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iridium

This subject has been beaten to death, there are pro's and con's to both sides of the arguement.

Agreed. It's obvious to me that the clear-thinking majority believe the BBs should be brought back to life. Hurray!

(in reply to Iridium)

Post #: 130

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/26/2005 3:53:04 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: byron13

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iridium

This subject has been beaten to death, there are pro's and con's to both sides of the arguement.

Agreed. It's obvious to me that the clear-thinking majority believe the BBs should be brought back to life. Hurray!

_____________________________

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 131

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?