What Happened to Battleships? #shorts

#shorts

Simon's Social Media:

Love content? Check out Simon's other YouTube Channels:

[Highice]

They would have one usful task. Offshore bombardment. It's cheaper to fire an artillary shell than a missle. That's why they were still using them in the first Iraq War.

[daemanj]

Remember, the U.S. still used its iowa class battleships in the 90s. They were fast too, 32 knots.

[battlesheep]

Though ineffective for naval warfare, Battleships are the most practical way of having a bigass gun on a mobile platform and were still useful for shelling shore-based targets, which is why they were used as recently as the first Gulf War.

[lazarus]

the battleships in WW2 were useful as floating artillery though, take fore example their crucial role in the battles for iwo jima, okinawa, the oranienbaum bridgehead, the siege of sevastopol etc.

[ibalibagkita]

Still the coolest things ever, especially dreadnoughts, they were considered superweapons of their time (similar to nuclear weapons of today). The only way to deter a neighbor's dreadnought is with a dreadnought of yours.

[Archangel]

Not really because of speed as much as aircraft and missile technology. The Iowa class could go 33 knots which is about the same speed as the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer I served on. I still think they should have a modern heavy cruiser design with a new 16” twin gun turret forward and aft as well as the VLS. The guns would still be an extremely deadly and relatively inexpensive means for Naval shore bombardment.

[robertlucas]

The battleships although retired are still maintained with certain areas off limits to public (those on display as a museum). Those areas have upgraded computers and logistical equipment in case they need them on a moments notice. But the US GOVERNMENT will officially say they are retired or not in use for good even though they are maintained with new equipment ready for use.

[ChuckMatley]

When I was in the military, two different branches, I had talks with many who had received fire support from the battleships. They all said it was accurate and awesome. I never heard a negative comment.

[dylanbowlin]

Battleships (such as the case of the super-dreadnought HMS Audacious which struck a naval mine, capsized, exploded, and sank in October, 1914) were also prestige and propaganda tools, so much so that their being taken out of action either temporarily or permanently was a matter national/imperial security concerns.

[michaelklim]

I think that a battleship could eventually reclaim the throne of the seas, but it would have to be unlike any previous battleship and employ technology that we have but is not yet feasible to build a ship around.

It would have to have cannons capable of 1000+ miles using stuff like railguns, coilguns, or light gas guns. All of which have been made but none have met all of the requirements to actually be used as an effective weapon yet. The 1000+ mile range is from the cruise missiles that it would be competing with.

With the amount of firepower being thrown at ships in modern combat, traditional battleship armor is just not going to be enough to save the ship. Packing the proportional amount of armor onto a ship is just not possible or at least affordable. So it will have to rely upon active protection systems. For that you have lots of bullets, interceptor missiles, or lasers. All of which are currently used but are struggling to keep up with antiship speeds of new and upcoming anticipated missiles. So until the ship can be properly protected from all threats it will face (within reason), I don't see that much money being invested into something so expensive and untested.

The last problem is, of course, costs. The battleships will have to be cheaper to build and operate than all of the aircraft, long and short range missiles, and artillery that it will be supplementing/replacing.

There is also the missile ship option. It will be cool to see South Korea's guided missile ship, but I don't see the US using them. It makes sense for S Korea operating in a small navy in a relatively short range. The US however, operates across the planet and will mainly need ships to project power. It already has the destroyers, cruisers, and submarines that fill this role with the same missiles. Peace time power projection doesn't require that many missiles and in wartime it would be cheaper to use a bunch of existing ships rather than some expensive new ships dedicated to the wartime role. Besides, I see guided missile ships as a class of their own, not battleships.

[stue]

Battleships where a very expensive status symbol. They where so precious to a nation that losing one in combat was terrible, so navys didn't want to use them in risky battles, which defeated the purpose of having them. Where an equally expensive aircraft carrier didn't have to put itself in danger to be used.

[TheLiamster]

I wish the Royal Navy could return to its pre WW2 era size but that will never happen again

[calvinsmith]

If anime predicts the future the Yamato is gonna have the last laugh.

/s

[baxter]

I don't think the age of the battleship is over. Look at the battleship can still be used for sure bombardment the reason why you would do the battleship instead of any other ship in the navy because A lot of guns that can be used to hit the enemy defenses

[weshart]

A bit pedantic, but I believe the USS Missouri is still in "active" service. Decommissioned for all intents and purposes, but on paper, I think she's still a commissioned part of the US fleet.

[Practitioner_of_Diogenes]

In reality, battleships weren't ineffective; they were still doing their job decently well. The problem wasn't their effectiveness, but their costs to build and maintain.
In fact, some people are looking at ways to have the battleship return in some way, bit like with DDGs. South Korea's drafting a design that's basically a "BBG".

[jehb]

It wasn't overnight as it took a long time for strike aircraft to carry a weapon that could hurt a battleship

Naval treaties significantly cut the number of battleships that either could exist or could be built to replace older ships

Eventually by the 1930s you had torpedo bombers that could carry a big enough by then to damage a battleship and after that you would have level and dive-bombers that could drop an armor-piercing bomb.

Otherwise the original function of an aircraft carrier was to launch scout aircraft to find enemy ships so Capital ships could attack them.

[ekij]

If you have air superiority it is very cost effective to sit off the coast of your opponent and blatter it with naval guns. Much more cost effective than bombing it or missile attack.
One of the UK ships wore out its gun barrels bombarding the falklands before the land invasion to liberate it.

[Dra]

I tell you one thing, when you called in artillery from a battleship, it was devastating, battleship is the I think we should bring them back, with new protections because of the anti-shipping missiles I want more survivability even if hit

[randybentley]

Given that the Iowas would likely not get into gunfighting duels if recommissioned for its new purpose, then they could afford to lose a turret and the barbette upon which it sits. That would garner a phenomenal amount of Reserve of Buoyancy that could be allocated elsewhere. Install a flight deck and the facilities for a Marine Expeditionary Unit to embark from and you have a vessel that could make amphibious assaults a near certainty.