Agreed! It's a cryin' shame. Battleships, in my humble civilian's opinion (and contrary to United States Navy doctrines) still have their place in the fleet, both as heavy fire support and as, well, symbols. Sure, they might not be needed all the time, but battleships have longstanding reputations, incredible firepower, and an unbeatable presence.
They are still all kept battle ready as Congress was worried that the navy needed fire support which they were having trouble to find a replacement to (unless my info became outdated). So if their is a war that warrants the need they will bring back these mighty behemoths from retirement to battle.
Unfortunately the trained and skilled manpower to bring them to life just isn't there. The people who manned them in the 80s are in their 50s, 60s, and 70s; those who manned them in previous wars are in their 70s, 80s, 90s, and increasingly coming up with a terminal case of dead.
This wouldn't be a problem but for the fact that the Iowas' machinery is like nothing else in the fleet; their equipment technological relics from eighty years ago, and the powder bags for their guns are probably outright dangerous at this point (they were in the 1980s, which is part of why Iowa's center gun exploded in turret #2 in 1990).
If we were still building battleships in 2014 (or even 20 or 10 years ago), we might be able to have battleships now; as is, the best use of these ships is to remind us all of what our sailors suffered for seventy years ago in the waters of the Pacific and the Atlantic.
Ja sam wydałem na ten temat szereg opracowań popularno-naukowych, a nawet jedną całkowicie naukową (na łamach Przeglądu Morskiego, wydawanego przez Marynarkę Wojenną). "Nieprzydatność" pancerników to nawet nie jest mit, a totalna bzdura...
Do You have some problem with this? Once again and last I tell You, that Osprey is on that picture only for illustrative purposes. It is "Iowa" in 1990 because of her final configuration. I can't write 1991 or 1992+ because she was deactivated then. So I didn't draw Osprey on her top view. Only showing Iowa's landing deck capability on longitual view.
they need to build one of these but fitted with massive rail guns instead of gun powder turrets. Does a lot more damage then on traditional rail gun mounted on a destroyer and probably can go a lot farther.
The Yamato was the most powerful battleship in history. the bismark's 15 inch guns would be no match for Yamato's 9 18.1 inch guns which could strike at over 26 miles away. just one of her shells could cripple the bismark before she could even get a shot off. US battle ships like the Missouri or Iowa were also capable of out gunning bismark.
Iowa was the fastest and most modern in design. Her better in quality armor protected much more percent of her freeboard and horizontal structure. Her fire control system could hit target at any time of day or weather on very long range. The range of Yamato's guns doesn't matter - she couldn't hit a target at range of about 14 000-16 000 m at Samar or dummy target at sea excercisses. Iowa fired with precission at japanese destroyer "Nowaki" at Truk in 1944 at the range up to 32 000 m (!) Yamato could be easy put out off action if her main fire-control directors or coimmunications systems were hit (only by fragments). Iowa have 7 fire-control directors with 7 micro-wave radar sets, Mark 41 stabilizers and Mark 8/Mark 1A computers. Yamato have only two main artillery directors with poor stabilization system and no fire-control radars. Iowa's range was three times longer then Yamato's. She ould maintain a sefety distance because of her radar detection and speed, and attack at night or on bad weather. Results = Yamato demolished and put out off action.
Yamato have very poor anti-aircraft weapons. Today's AEGIS cruiser could destroy all of aircraft from carrier by SM-3 missiles or laser NAVSEA LAWS systems (in near future). That is because the carriers are obsolete and why the battleships with electromagnetic Railguns will back.
Even with all the speed in the world, the Iowa wouldn't have made a hole in the super-massive hull of the Yamato, and yes, the Yamato could fire at 42 km (just 2 km longer tha Iowa), but not as precise as Iowa. The Yamato was design to fight against multiple targets at a time and with its powerful cannons and its massive hull it could easely beat the Iowa.
But it doesn't matter anymore. Modern navy counts on carriers and crouisers more than battleships. And they're right. A battleship is only good against ground and naval units, not aerplanes, and it is easy to replace an airplane if lost. Battleships are too expensive and useless when it comes to ground warfare inland, away from the shores, no matter how well-armed they are. If a battleship could move on land or fly like a bird, then nobody would argue
Soon there'll be no more battleships, and for the better. Why would any country spend too much money in a thing like that when they can spend it on airplanes, bombers and missiles, much more cheaper and effective? They wouldn't.
Maybe out-gunning, but not as accurate nor as manouverable. Bismarck could strike with precision accuracy from a greater distance, where as Yamato and Iowa did not have the fire control of accuraccy systems of the Bismarck. I am not denying the firepower of Tamato is greater than Bismarck, just that the Yamato had it's own size working against it and could be out-manouverd by Bismarck. The Yamato would win if Bismarck was standing still, but if the Bismarck could engage in a fire and move battle, it would turn Yamato inside out and just aim for the guns and take 'em out. Ir they could do what they did with the Hppd when they sunk it in about 5 min and shoot the magazine, because you and I know that Bismarck had that kind of accuracy.