Comments on: Big Guns Go Silent

By: dan schlicht

dan schlicht — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 16:55:59 +0000

the battleship was built/designed well before its
true intended time. Respectively, past wars
quickly reveiled the aircraft carrier is the american heavy-weight. Ships designed to deliver
a continuous pounding. Think of all the improvments carriers have received over the years,
yet, during the gulf war– there was only one nuke on station (cvn 71) out of the six carriers in the theater. It has been reported that a new destroyer could take on a carrier battle group.
A very curious statement considering the absolute
low number of carrier serving other nations.
To say the least, those ships along with all others would be monitored at all times, at a minimum. I believe they would be sunk when ever we wanted them sunk, period. That is how much
confidence I have in our military and our power
as a world leader. When is the last time you saw an american jump the fence to get to mexico or an american getting on a raft to get to Cuba. My
point you ask? Sometimes its simple-might is right. Be the advisary for a moment, its a destroyer or holly-god, its a battleship. Think
of all the ships in the resent future that have been hit. USS STARK– USS PRINCETON– USS ROBERTS
NOT TO FORGET AMPHIBIOUS CARRIER THAT HIT A MINE.
Can any one answer the question, how many of these ships after being hit left the seen under there own power? In todays war invironment, high sea battles are over. You must have a ship that
is designed to take a pounding and allow her crew
a chance to first of all, survive, and than actually stay on line and continue the mission.
Back in USS Missouri’s early days, she was hit by a suicide plane on her starbard side, yet in the 1991 gulf war, it was reported that the dent from that encounter was still present. What about moral, national pride. New shell concepts, thick armor and modern defense systems make these ships extreamly powerful and survivable in a time of
the inevitable, you will get hit. What is a crew of 80 or so going to do when there ship is split in half because she was thin skined, they too will sink. I dont believe at that time they are going to be saying however, we are on the most powerful survivable platform available. That would be a lie, the most powerful and survivable
platforms are doing a much more, they are making
other politicle messages, come visit our city– we have a beautiful museaum for you to visit, please give us your money. Instead of saving the lives
of the very loved ones who voluntered to serve this country. Its clear, the mothball preservation process indeed saved these ships
that allowed there return in different situations
thru out there lives.
The Battleship will live on forever because, well, the americans love there Battleships, some–
how the navy thinks its there money and not the tax payers. Each ship has many years of service left at a minimun because of the mothball process
its time we made a final resolution to past mistakes and except the fact that survivability is
in fact important in stead of putting a destroyer
on another ship for a dry journey home. We should immediately wake these fine lady’s, the
citizins of the United States demand it. Its
our own leaders fault, we have been the world police for many year. It has been reported that
the Battleship is to politically important to put in many situations of harms way. That is the most idiodic statement on could possibly make
about a Battleship. Here is what the statement
should have been, calm down over there and by the way, pay no attention to the battleship battle
group that will be in the area, she is there
avoiding bad weather elsewhere during training
exercises, im sure you can appreciate our situation. Not everything needs to make perfect fiscal sense. Isnt it clear by now war is expensive, we will fight for a country that want’s
our money but also would like to set as deadline for us to leave. How much has the 1991 gulf war
actually cost this great nation since it actually
never really ended. It is to expensive not to have the Battleships, how much does a shell cost
compared to a missle? With the moderately new shells available, gps, etc, I bet its still a
million or so less. How long before the ships would actually pay for themselfs, in war, quickly.
When the Russian Admiral stated, when we would
shoot at you, our weapons would just bounce off
and then you would sink us.
The only people that are happy we dont have these ships is the enemy, it makes there life easier.
Has anyone actually asked the very people who
would be relying on these platforms, the marine
coming ashore, or did they just ask the arm chair
quarterbacks who will be eating there steak while
the invasion is taking place and then they have the adosity to apologise for the death of a loved one, and then say, we will learn from are mistakes
and there death will not go in vein. Can anyone
answer this question, how many military personal
were lost during the initial gulf war conflict when the Battleship in the theater? How about
after the conflict when a marine assalt wasnt going to happen and the Battleship was taken out
of commission? The numbers are stagering.

By: keith

keith — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 03:41:35 +0000

when you asses the battleship and ability to rearm with modern arms also keeping the big guns you have a very stabble platform that was designed to take a beating but when you look at the powers that be well they feel new is the only option as a canadian a friend of mine served in the gulf and he was impressed by the bb they escorted as a gun platfrom it was right for the job and the shells are cheaper but it would need refit to modern weapons and stealth well time will beat it to

By: wargmmer2005

wargmmer2005 — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:55:02 +0000

ok
the old battleships take too many people and funds to keep up.
build new ones
build a nuke battlecruiser with 12 inch guns and 155mm guns that can cover a lot of territory.
with modern guns, modern amror, computers, GPS guided rounds, and VLS cells, we can make a ship that can take on a Carrier Group.

By: Earle

Earle — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:27:38 +0000

I have wondered at the power that the battleship.They are of an era that brings to thought ship against ship battle.I think,my humble position,that this platform is still viable.Bear with me as I digress.The Marines have a very hard job.They are required to assault places that are not ideally suited to land based artillery.So a sea based system is ideal.Second,the platform already exists.Third,with the technology that we posess we can make this happen.Why create a new class of ship.To make a ship builder out of luck rich?My proposal:let the Marines have the Battle ships.The ships leave alot for improvements.But that is why their size makes them great.They have lots of room for the technology of the future.Let the people who have the most to lose choose the means to that end,and let the tax dollars fall where they may.I have faith that the Marines know what they need why don’t you?

By: yvgeny

yvgeny — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 19:13:48 +0000

The age of the battleship was over before it began. It never really played a decisive role in any conflict. Read "Sacred Vessels: The Cult of the Battleship and the Rise of the US Navy" by Robert O'Connell. Seeing as how they never effectively accomplished their original mission, keeping them around with all the logistical support that's required just to provide naval bombardment for marines comes off as ridiculous. That's a fairly skewed perspective of the role of the navy. I know that the focus going towards littoral warfare but it is quite another to build the entire navy around floating artillery for ampbhibious operations. Need I remind people that we haven't done a large scale opposed amphibious landing since Inchon during the Korean War? The Persian Gulf War did serve as a final glory hour for the battleship but its capability has been more than replaced. The navy is not anti-battleship, I've heard many people in the navy express admiration for them. They just don't like big fat targets sitting out in the water that they then requires them to tie up smaller ships to defend. On a side note, surface guys do not rule over the air community. In fact, I'd say that the navy is very aviation centered. The carrier remains the center of naval operations and it would be silly to say otherwise. All of their best weapons systems are geared towards air warfare.

By: Joe Cottone

Joe Cottone — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 19:25:12 +0000

I guess the navy still hasn’t learned the lessons of WWII, Korea, Vietnam & Persian Gulf.
The battleship is still the best ground support we have in the navies arsenal to protect amphibious assaults, just ask any marine who has participated & he’ll tell you what he knows helped him stay alive.
I know that there are Harrier jets that have been assigned to that same task & they do a good job but the battleship can stay on scene a longer period of time & hit the enemy all that valuble time saving many marine lives & isnt that whats most important!!!
Lets honor all the brave men & women who serve & all those who made the ultimate sacrafice by trying to save many more from having to meet the same fate!!! tryng to serve our country.
Joe Cottone
Valley Stream NY

By: Fidel

Fidel — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 18:44:13 +0000

My grandfather fought at Okinawa and he told me that the sound of battleship support was like a roar from God. The japanese ahead of him would cower with fear at the thought of a Volkswagon beetle sized projectile landing next to them.
We need these ships.

By: Former USMC

Former USMC — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 17:55:54 +0000

Remember the old saying...if it ain't broke, don't fix it.' However, I guess the lobbyist got to the senators and congressfolk, who in turn said to the navy let's get rid of this proven warships so we can build tremendously exspensive DDX's on top of unproven modular technology. My old frat buddy Todd would love to have the contracts in his state. And gee, at the rate of 1 DDX a year it would mean decades of work for my constituents. I've followed the DDX program in the Navy's professional magazine Proceedings, and let me tell you this, they make no sense. They are supposed to work in the litorals (area right off shore) where the Iowa class battleship was the former master. One problem.....you can see ships from land in the litorals. For the BB, no problem. Armor as thick as 17" in some spots provide a level of protection unrivaled in today's navy. Those who were unlucky enough to see the BB could expect cruise missles, 16" main guns or the versatile 5" secondary batteries. Lot's of fire power from one ship. We need only look to the Stork and Cole to figure out how paper thin our ships have become. We've sacraficed a proven platform in favor of spending more money on a ship that would be utterly defenseless (minus the 1 .50 M2) if it took a hit to its computer systems.....or, god forbid, lost power. All it takes is one rubber boat with explosives.....and bang.....we're out billions of dollars and have to wait several years to get a replacement. High tech doesn't even come close anymore to meaning better. We've all seen that in Iraq. We should seriously think about going back to the 16"ers...........just like our ground troops are going back to the tried and trusted .45's and M-14's.

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 17:16:39 +0000

I, by no means, am a military expert; however, in the past few years I have read extensively into military strategy, and the use of newer technology to do the same job, but better. The age of the battleship is pretty much over. The modern era is more concerned with delivering more firepower faster and cheaper, and more accuratly.
I, like most people who have seen one, am in love with the BB’s, although, I do see how they are no longer effective in todays warfighting.
The next time a battleship will be needed, and most useful, will be if we have to attack a country that has extensive coastline, but even that could be down easily with any of a hundred other options.

By: ted schwind

ted schwind — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:36:26 +0000

Too bad the Navy couldn’t(why not?) mount a turreted MLRS on the deck of destroyers.