Out of Pod Experience

What people often forget is complexities of Battleships in WW2.

1. Most were old WW1 Surplus. Imagine if most of the tanks and planes in WW2 were WW1 surplus, technology evolved. Most carriers were newly built, most of the old ones were relegated to training.
2. The eight WW1 era Battleships at Pearl Harbor of which only 2 were sunk permanently and were used later during the war had other problems besides Aircraft. They lacked proper AA defenses, modern armor and were to slow to keep up with the fleet. Also port security was bad, they had skeleton crews at the time and not up to operation, nor were they following war time security.
3. Modern Battleships did sink a lot of ships including Aircraft Carriers. They also provided deterrents preventing fast ships like Destroyers and Cruisers from rushing Carriers. Commanders had to constantly plan around them.
4. They were improperly used in a lot of cases. Japan hoarded their until the end of the war when they didn't have the support or fuel. The Kongo class considered a low priority was used heavily and successful while the Yamoto's were outnumbered 20-1 when they were finally used and sunk on a terribly planned suicide mission. The Germans never had a fleet capable of supporting them, they preformed well early but heavily outnumbered they were locked up in ports where half of them were sunk. The death of the Italian / German surface fleet and the 100% U-Boat strategy obsoleted British Battleships.
5. Battleships were invaluable as Bombardment. There was a Red Zone at D-Day that the Germans retreated to because it was outside the range of Allied Guns, hundreds of tanks and artillery positions were destroyed by Battleships and the Germans could not force the Allies off the shore because of them. Their role in the Pacific was just as valuable.
6. Many commanders in the US and Briton put their flags on Battleship because they were so hard to sink in Naval Warfare.


Missiles and Planes are just as limited. A steel shell is harder to shoot down then a missile or plane being a solid round not reliant on propellant. When providing ground support they don't need to be refueled after every sortie and the rounds don't cost 1 million dollars to fire and take up space so their are limited numbers. That means that commanders can launch more in support of soldiers on the ground.

More then that Battleships can also be equipped with Anti Air and Sea Missiles themselves and are much harder to sink. If the Fawklands War taught us anything Missiles don't always get through or score a hit. While Missiles are impressive believe it or not they would have serious trouble sinking a WW2 era Battleship. It would take dozens and dozens, the Battleship guns while limited by range carried more destructive force, an Armor Piercing Shell from the Iowa weighed 2700 Pounds, a Harpoon caries a 480 pound charge. The Bismarck took 400 shells before going down.

With the range of Rail Guns that gets a whole lot better. I bet they can even make the shells guided.


They were not slow at all. The Iowa moves 31 Knots, Bismarck 30, Kongo 29 knots and at that time and today the average for vessels is about 30 knots.

Finally the number one thing that made Battleships so expensive was their Armor. They were not much bigger then Freighters at the time. Their impressive tonnage was all steel plating. Today their defenses would be less physical and more laser defense and CIWS, cutting the cost.

So a 250m long 25000 Ton ship (1/4th the tonnage of a Nimitz) harboring 6 / 10-16" Railguns, SAM Missiles, Anti Ship Missiles defended by a dozen Anti-missile systems would be a fierce force on the seas. Able to provide ground support not for a million dollar Tomahawk or 15minutes later from a jet that costs 200k Dollars to launch but from a nice cheap projectile 100km away, and sea support without the weakness of missiles being jammed or shot.

While they may still not be the center of the fleet they do have a place in it now that technology is catching up to them. A light weight, modern, defended, rail platform should be considered an option. They could build for of them instead of the next 100000 Ton Supercarrier.

Alara I hope that becomes a reality. A railgun toting BS would make me so happy. They could name the hull the Megathron or the Hyperion and I'd have a grin on my face all day long.

Although I secretly suspect the USS Rokh to be more applicable.

While I was station in Papa Hotel, I attended a funeral memorial for all subs lost at sea, at an outside chapel on base. Now, that was one of the most emotional experiences I've had next to the Arizona Memorial and the funerals I've attended for family.

No one needs a battleship when a Cruiser can fire missiles with much more fire power, precision and 25 times the range of the most modern battleship shells.




The only reason The Bismarck took so many shells to sink was that before it was engage by the navy a Plane had disabled its rudder. The enemy ships could therefore close on it quickly. The enemy ships would then fire their shells at it in a straight line rather than arced from above. This meant that the shells were going right through the surface parts of of the ship and no breaches where made below sea level to let it sink. The Bismarck was sunk by the German crew with explosives to get the enemy to stop shooting.

And the Bismarck's ability to fight was disabled long before it was sunk.


In comparison the HMS Hood. The British flagship was sunk in one lucky shot.


Yes missiles are expensive but ships are even more so and by the time a battleship gets within range of the enemy. The battleship itself has already been within enemy missile range for about 2700 km. Although getting a hit through the armour belt is a lot of work. All the enemy has to do is take out the turrets and the battleship is a floating brick.



Without it's own propulsion it won't matter. The ranges ships fight on these days means you can't fire a shot in a straight line to the enemy ship.




There are thousands of experienced Engineers and Scientists providing information that lead to the decision to abandon battleships. Believe it or not but you on the internet do not have the one-up on them all with your rail gun theories.

And Aircraft Carriers have actually been getting smaller over the years while their capacity for Aircraft has become larger.

Now, now, dont fight. There's one way to settle this. Just go to Iran and ask to use their Time Machine.

That's what I am imagining, a cruiser with rails. I can't remember which one of them is getting the rail but its only getting the one on the bow.

That would be the Zumwalt class I believe which is a Destroyer. Or it might be the Ticonderoga class Cruiser.

Odd thing about the new Zumwalt and the Ticon's, the Zumwalt is 6000 tons heavier and has 2 larger guns but is classified as a Destroyer... Odd.

BTW I found something old, it is a 1990's Battleship class that was planned to be introduced to replace the Iowa's in the ground pounder role. 6 were going to be manufactured carrying 500+ Tomahawk Missiles each with a 200+ meter length. It really looks cool. They shelved it in favor of modifying Ohio class subs to carry 150+ Tomahawks. That was done but considered not good enough which is why the Zumwalt has 2, 6" long range guns planned.

The Iowa's are technically still in reserve and have to be kept in ready condition.



An interesting read.