|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Chinese Battleship
I came across this article on the National Interest website.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...ttleship-87986 National Interest put's up some "interesting" articles about modern warfare, and this is I think is one of them. It sort of follows along China's current naval build-up but goes one further. Does anyone think its possible that China will be building large warships in the Russian Kirov Class mould any time soon? The American response BTW according to National Interest would be.......... https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...hina-war-91646 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...tleships-21712 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
One thing to keep in mind is that the Iowa's armor would protect the ships vitals from most non-nuclear anti-ship missiles that have been deployed to date - the biggest threat to them was always good old fashioned torpedoes.
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Battleships are a technology whose time has passed I think. Prior to WWII they were core of fleets because they were the best thing naval technology could make. Their guns let them fight from miles away and their armor defended them from the guns of smaller ships. They could also land massive HE shells inland to support beach landings.
Once submarines got more capable (and their torpedos more reliable and accurate) and aircraft...were invented the battleship's dominance was ended. A battleship's guns don't mean much to subs or planes while both can rain destruction of BBs. If the BBs require a battle group worth of escorts to be effective they end up too expensive to field. Basically it's the USN and no one else that can field carrier battle groups due to the sheer amount of infrastructure involved. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I disagree - the French and British can field carrier task forces - but in both cases doing so puts a serious strain on their fleets to do so. And a battleship given proper escorts can put a serious hurt on an enemy task force.
Also keep in mind that what would be proposed is bringing them back for gun fire support for the Marines - which is pretty much what happened to them after 1942 in the USN anyway. Outside of the one slugfest at Leyte they basically did gunfire support while it was the carriers that swept the seas. Thus if one or two was brought back and used for that function it would be an effective use of the ships. I.e. they wouldnt be slugging it out with a Chinese Kirov but instead laying down a lot of steel on a beach instead. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Battleships really are only much good for fire support in modern times. Yes they can be armed with missiles and other technology to extend their range beyond the 20 miles (give or take) of their guns, but so can most other, smaller, and FAR less expensive vessels.
That said, it's nice to have one around, especially if conducting amphibious operations, but other than that they're an expensive and generally unnecessary luxury.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
A battleship without escorts is a big expensive target. A battleship with escorts is a massive expense for a dozen mile radius of "fire support".
Modern amphibious forces have amphibious APCs, helicopters, drones, hovercraft, satellites, aircraft, and cruise missiles. No one is going to storm a beach with unmounted infantry in plywood boats anymore. Pounding a beach and a few miles inland with 16in shells isn't worth the effort. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|