RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

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

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.



wild_Willie2 -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/24/2005 12:59:27 AM)

They will just scream " BANZAI" (or what ever the chinese version is) and shock attack the island [8|][8|][8|][8|][8|][8|][8|]



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

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



rtrapasso -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/24/2005 4:34:24 AM)

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![:D]



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

quote:

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


That depends if Mike & guys finish v1.5 before the invasion. [:)]



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

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.




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

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.



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

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.



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

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?



byron13 -> RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? (4/26/2005 2:55:34 AM)


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!



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

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!

[8|][:'(]



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.90625