Ollie North: Save the Battlewagons

[Patriot Heart]

Sounds like the hired idiots that "serve" us are in over their heads again, and forget history at their (and our) peril.........

Save the battlewagons
By Oliver North
Friday, September 15, 2006


(http://javascript<b></b>:__doPostBack('ctrlColumnDetail$Contact1$lbContact ',''))

The battleship's captain, Larry Sequist, described the effectiveness of the 45,000-ton armored behemoth: "When we would sail the Iowa down the Strait of Hormuz, all southern Iran would go quiet. Iran's Revolutionary Guards were steaming around in boats with rockets, shooting at ships. When we arrived, all of that stuff stopped." When Saddam invaded Kuwait in August 1990, the battleship Wisconsin was among the first capital ships to arrive in the Persian Gulf. By the time Operation Desert Storm concluded on Feb. 28, 1991, the Wisconsin and her sister battleship, USS Missouri, had delivered more than 1 million pounds of ordnance on the enemy from their 16-inch guns, Tomahawk TLAM-C cruise missiles and 5-inch gun batteries. Fire from the battleships was so overwhelming that an Iraqi garrison actually surrendered to one of the USS Wisconsin's unmanned aerial vehicles.
Despite the effectiveness of the vessels in modern warfare -- and pleas from the U.S. Marine Corps to retain them for Naval Surface Gunfire Support -- two of the four battleships, the New Jersey and the Missouri, were decommissioned and turned into floating museums. Until now, however, Congress has insisted that the Wisconsin and Iowa be maintained in "a state of readiness" for "rapid reactivation" in the "event of a national emergency." But all that may be about to change. A House-Senate Conference Committee is now considering lifting the requirement that the last two "heavy gun" ships in the allied arsenal be kept ready for action. Apparently the lessons of recent history have been lost on the administration -- and perhaps even in the corridors of Congress -- despite new threats from Iran to acquire nuclear weapons and interfere with shipping in the Persian Gulf.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/OliverNorth/2006/09/15/save_the_battlewagons

[2nd_Amendment]

I've watched all the excuses for eliminating the remaing BB's over the past 10 years. I have yet to hear a single one that actually makes sense. Yes, under certain circumstances they make nice big targets...for a nuclear power willing to start a World War. Yes, they are labor intensive...which is kind of one main reason for a standing military. Yeah, they are expensive...until you look at the cost of pretty much every other military system. Yes, they don't fit new weapons systems...until we modify them to do so....

They are the ultimate sea going military platforms and have nothing to fear from anything out there, including enemy subs, except nuclear attack. We should be building more, with an eye towards allowing ongoing mods to incorporate new technologies that would allow the next generation of BB's to endure 100 years or more.

Sadly our "leadership", and probably the nation as a whole, has lost sight of long range goals, let alone the wise use of what we already have.

[DesertFox]

As demonstrated in 1942, battleships are relatively easy to sink and don't compare to the carrier in projecting firepower.

The carrier, not the battleship, is the ultimate seagoing war vessel.

[2nd_Amendment]

Both depend on their ancillary vessels. On their own a carrier is a far softer target than a BB. Likewise, a carrier projects its power by aircraft, far softer targets than incoming heavy ordnance from 10 miles out. The fact is, both have legitimate uses.

Also, it's worth noting that anything is relatively easy to sink when stuck in a shallow harbor amongst dozens of other immobile targets. We didn't lose a mass of carriers only because it wasn't known as "Carrier Row"...

[RayChuang]

As demonstrated in 1942, battleships are relatively easy to sink and don't compare to the carrier in projecting firepower.

The carrier, not the battleship, is the ultimate seagoing war vessel.

Actually, Geneal William "Billy" Mitchell demonstrated as far back as 1921 that a battleship was a sitting duck for an air attack if there wasn't air power to protect the battleship. This was borne out with the famous Royal Navy air attack on the Italian battleship fleet at Taranto on November 11-12, 1940, the Japanese Imperial Navy attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 and the Japanese Imperial Navy attack of the battleship HMS Prince of Wales and battlecruiser HMS Repulse on December 10, 1941.

[2nd_Amendment]

This argument has come up before here. Regardless, I'll hit a couple points as to why I lump this carrier/airpower argument in with all the others that don't hold water: A carrier without air support is a sitting duck. Various fast cruisers and light gun boats and even subs under certain conditions are all sitting ducks without air cover. The fact a BB is also is irrelevent. It's a ship, it's a target, the end.

Points rebutting the sitting duck claim: A BB can take more abuse. A BB has longer effective range without air support. A BB can (and does) have overwhelming anti-air defensive measures like nothing else out there is capable of supporting on its own. The platform allows the addition of essentially any new defensive(and offensive) system that can be dreamed up in almost any reasonable quantity.

Here's an interesting read:

http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/battleships.htm

And from it an even more interesting factoid:

Contrary to popular myths, the U.S. Navy has NEVER lost a battleship once underway (moving).[4] The battleships lost at Pearl Harbor by the Mitchell-esque surprise air attack were stationary at anchor. In fact, after Pearl Harbor the U.S. Navy did not lose any battleships ever again, but she did lose dozens of aircraft carriers. What has been lost here is that the battleship really represents two ideas; long-range powerful guns AND a very armored platform that can take hits and keep fighting. Most people confuse battleships as offering only guns and then conclude they are no longer needed because aircraft carrier planes have longer range, overlooking the necessities of having hard armored mobility at sea.

That's what the Marines are trying to drive home in their fight to save the remaining BB's.

[dPrasse]

amen , 2nd ...

[The_Sonarman]

Carriers carry enormous offensive air power, to be sure, but the vessel itself hasn't any real armor. They can be disabled or destroyed with a couple torpedo hits, or a couple antiship missiles.

I remember all the wargames I was involved in. In every one that involved submarines, the "good guys" carrier (ie. the USA) was smoked by submarine torpedoes within a couple hours of the wargame start time. The officers in charge of the wargames always brushed that "uncomfortable fact" aside, and continued playing anti-air wargames.... which is all they wanted to do in the first place. The unfortunate fact was.... "we" couldn't stop a sub from putting the carrier on the bottom of the sea.

The fact is, a fairly small country's hostile submarine force of just a few vessels can easily destroy the few US carriers we might have deployed in any future conflict.

[DesertFox]

The boys who fought WWII fought this battle for real. Battleships lost because they can't defend themselves anywhere nearly as effectively as carriers can. Dependence on ancillary vessels means nothing since everything afloat has that vulnerability.

A carrier isn't designed to be a weapon, but rather a carrier of air power; and air power is far more dangerous in far more scenarios than a battle wagon can be. Too, a carrier can take along all the shipboard firepower necessary to act in a battlewagon role if need be.

The onliest reason any battleship could still function today would be that America can put one out there with all the help it needs to survive (nobody else could) and it's extremely useful for gunboat diplomacy. A flotilla of both battleships AND carriers would be ideal since the carrier could protect both and the battleship is cheaper to make and man.

[2nd_Amendment]

Umm, DF, while carriers were lost in battle no BB ever was. The only time they lost was when moored and unable to roll out. That's because while a carrier in fact can't actually defend itself a BB can, from boats, planes and even subs.

The point isn't that they are the perfect vessel. nothing is perfect. Just that they have their uses and the urge to eliminate them, especially in an age of the "War on Terror" is almost downright strange on the part of a "conservative" CONgress.

[DesertFox]

I think you're mistaken about no battleships being lost in WWII. A carrier can do anything the battleship can -- carry tons of munitions with giant guns, in addition to carrying planes which protect it over far greater distances than anything the battlewagon can do. Anything you can put on a battlewagon you can also put on a carrier; the reverse isn't true.

I don't advocate getting rid of them because we can protect them and they ARE useful -- and cheaper than those billion-dollar carriers. I was also against the Army getting rid of The Golden Hose 30 years ago because it was a cheap weapon system that served both the air defense role and the ground defense role; but the Army chucked it, breaking my heart and that of many others.

[2nd_Amendment]

None were lost in action that I know of. I'll dig some more later if you want...

Carriers can't carry crap for guns. Anti-aircraft weaponry(phalanx?) as far as I know but, again, I'll see what I can turn up later.

Golden Hose? OK, ya got me there...

EDIT: I can't find any instance of the US losing a BB while underway during the 20th century and, here's the kicker, I can't find any instance of any nation actually losing a BB while underway except in duel against another BB. Air strikes damaged some but all appear to have been finished off by subs or other BB's.

[Beowulf]

Carriers are awesome as are the aircraft they deploy but to retire this thing of beauty and might?
http://home.att.net/~steven.newton6/Images/16inchguns.jpg

Or this one:
http://www.battleship.org/images/bb64fa.jpg

What a shame that would be! Keep em' ready!

[Nutrider99]

Battleships are vulnerable to attack by missiles or submarines. They are good for pounding the hell out of coastal fortifications and for launching cruise missiles. They are an awesome display of firepower that can be used in any weather. However, they need to be held in reserve. The fact is, America doesn't have the balls it once did. The loss of a single battleship would cause many American politicians to seek surrender. You can never tell when another cowardly son of a bitch like bill clintoon might get elected by stupid people. A battleship lost to enemy fire would trigger immediate withdrawal and the abandonment of our allies. No, better to hold them in reserve until our children grow up, and hope that they have the courage we lack in paying the price to fight for our liberties.