It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Are battleships obsolete?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 07:21 PM
With the retirement of all our battleships by 1994, I have to ask this. Are battleships really unsuited for warfare in the 21st century?

Battleships are very costly and manpower-intensive. But the amount of firepower they carry cannot be ignored. You can argue that Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers can do the job, but I don't know. Those 60-inch guns were absolute money. It's mobile artillery that can go reach targets where aircraft can't go and field artillery can't reach.

posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 07:24 PM
Not if this thread is any indication...

Ther eis a glorious future ahead as battle platforms for lasers

posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 08:13 PM
but now we have cruise missiles better than any 60inch gun.

posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 08:17 PM
Hell, I thought that they have been obsolete since December 8, 1941.

The Navy just hates to give up its toys.

posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 10:16 PM
Battlesips would be great against a low tech enemy-ie w/o anti-ship missles, or an effective airforce. Battleships are slow, don't turn fast and are big targets. That said, it is always impressive to shoot 16" cannons 20-30 miles over the horizen onto land. This would be very effective against,say, the Palestinians.
Don't forget England lost several large surface ships when fighting for the Falklands, due to anti-ship missles launched from planes.

[edit on 23-6-2004 by mrmonsoon]

posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 11:17 PM
Battles ships and destroyers will be fitted with rail guns and serve a purpose. Metal rods can be fired at mach 7, and possible 200 mile range.

A new quick attack stealth fleet will be here shortly.

Read poplar mechanics or other such magazines, the government has already thought about the next wave of fighting.

Oh yeah, tungston rods from space will be the real kicker. Its a two part system, one guidence which is permanent, and the rods are stored seperate so you can quickly reload by sending up another container. Impact after about fifteen minutes, at 36,000 fps. Cheap and effective.

posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 02:38 AM
The ships lost in the falklands were lightly armoured and relatively vunerable compared to a battleship of WWII style.

The Iowa class battleship had 17 inchs of armour plating around vulnerable areas which on memory could stop most if not all modern non nuclear weapons. Armed with cruise missiles, the 16 inch guns and modern sensors these ships, although manpower intesive would be a viable weapons platform in most theatres of operations.

I think if you could build a unit with that type of armour, reduce the manning requirements - you'd have one very intimidating weapon system.

In saying that, however modern methods of combat seem to reduce the requirement for huge weapon platforms like a battleship, and only the US Navy could afford to operate.

posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 02:12 PM
Any navy could mantain a batleship effectivly if they done it right.
A battle ship is the very elite of firepower and armor.
The only reason it is beaten today is because weapons and ships now adays are fast something a battleship is not, all that is needed is to be able to increase the defesive capabilies on the ship and its sound

posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 03:50 PM
Does the battleship not fit the Forward... From the Sea doctrine?

And did Cher's "If I Could Turn Back Time" music video have anything to do with the battleships being decomissioned so quickly?

posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 01:36 PM
Yes they are obselete. Anything a battleship can do an aircraft carrier can do better.

posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 01:38 PM
cyber dude i agree with you battleships are good for close combat with other ships that never happens anymore.

posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 01:43 PM

this is an artists conception of the 'arsenal combat ship', which the navy predicts will replace the battleship, which for modern purposes is esentially a mobile fire support platform.

-koji K.

posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 01:53 PM

Originally posted by WestPoint23
but now we have cruise missiles better than any 60inch gun.

16 inch guns!

posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 03:29 PM
if you have a 60inch gun then thats well better than a cruise missile
also a battleship if undetected can beat anyship on the water or under it.
if a battleship got near enough to an aircraft carrier the carrier would be mincemeat no matter how fast it got its planes off.

posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 08:24 PM
devil wasp I couldn't have said it better myself have also its your fault for saying 60 inch gun and you think they don't have AWACS and patrol planes flying around a battle ship would never get close to an aircraft carrier.

[edit on 26-6-2004 by WestPoint23]

posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 08:23 AM
there is a limited scope of missions battleships can undertake , and over time it has diminished

bottom line the BBs are to costly and labour intensive to justify the few circumstances where they are a viable weapon platform


posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 07:54 PM
Didn't we already settle this a while back.

posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 08:12 PM
its my fault for saying that if you have a caliber of gun that doesnt exsist would be much better than a cruise missle? i was takeing the p*** man you couldnt fit a 60inch gun onto a battleship! imagine the shell size!
secondly i was saying IF not that it could, i know about AWACS and the components of the carriers defense. if a battleship got close enough then the carrier would be utterly fecked

new topics

top topics


log in