What was the last "useful" Battleship?

Depends on what you'd deem as useful. in the pacific, battleships were wonderful AA platforms, but you could pretty easily argue that cruisers with dual purpose guns were more effective in that role. additionally, you have to decide whether or not shore bombardment was useful. on one had, it seemed effective in the destruction of defensive infrastructure, but on the other hand, official reports put naval bombardment accuracy at about 1%. CAS was undoubtedly more effective, but also riskier, and took planes away from other roles like carrier protection. I'd say the Iowa class were useful, but only marginally, and moreover, less useful than more carriers and more planes.

None.

There isn't a single battleship in history that was necessary or performed its role properly. Everything every battleship ever did could have been accomplished by other ship types.

as an after thought, It would have been better to build more Alaska class CB's than to build Iowa's. smaller, more economical, but with solid AA and bombardment capability.

Right on. brother. You tell em
Blow it out your ass

Attached: fuckyoufaggot.png (945x1337, 1.22M)

Naval bombardment accuracy doesn't matter because you're going to sit off the coast and fire your entire magazine into the enemy position. Who cares if you have a 1% hit rate when you're firing hundreds of 16" high explosive shells?

I'd argue that the biggest use of the Iowas was simply to provide a hard target and a threat-in-being. If you want to face the US Navy down between WW2 and the Gulf War, you have to plan to face the only battleships in the world. There's ways to kill an Iowa, certainly, but it's not trivial.

Jutland. Name a single ship class that could have replaced the entire British battle line at Jutland. Hard mode: BCs are still battleships.

>Iowa was useful even post-war. It gave the Soviets a target even their largest missiles were unlikely to cripple in one shot. You could blast the radars and fire controls and bridge all off, and the citadel would still keep the engines turning, guns firing, and water outside.

Imagine believing garbage like this.

Attached: QGcdH8l.gif (500x226, 1.87M)

>Everything every battleship ever did could have been accomplished by other ship types.
And what about the Hood?

Attached: HMS_Hood_explosion_animooted.gif (400x224, 2.19M)

Jutland was the battle which proved that battleships were a ridiculous concept which didn't assure you mastery of the sea. Two navies with plenty of battleships each met one another and...nobody won. They just shot at each a little bit and went home. Jutland was the first and the last time battleships were ever used properly and they didn't do shit.

I strongly disagree for the reasons outlined here
Battleships have an underrated role as a "tank" that's annoying to kill and can't be ignored. Carriers can ignore them, America has carriers too. Alaska's relatively lesser protection would have simply crumpled under a Termit hit.

Imagine posting a fucking unarmored oiler as a stand in for over a foot of solid armor steel, and then pretending you proved something.

You may not know this, but any ship can explode in an embarrassing fashion immediately upon encountering the enemy fleet. This is not a trait unique to battleships.

They do produce the biggest bangs however, so maybe that's the one area in which they truly excel. Even a carrier can't explode as bigly as a battleship.

Period BBs had armament that fired bigger HE payload shells, also, torpedoes twice as HE heavy or so as that missile and HE was not considered viable for BB duels

Attached: Design_A-150-Super-Yamato_IJN.jpg (317x315, 21K)

Okay, and what happens if you substitute different ships on either side?
>Cruisers
Literally can't engage, see SMS Blücher
>Destroyers
Were at the battle, did nothing
>Carriers
Didn't exist

The point, kids, is that it doesn't matter how much armor you have. When you can be hit over and over again with missiles without the ability to return fire, it's just a matter of time before you're sunk. It doesn't matter if you stop the first or second missile from sinking you if the enemy can hit you with thirty more.

We only had FOUR of these ships during the cold war. There's no way they were going to be unstoppable behemoths that would have kept the Soviet navy in check. They would have evaporated in a shower of anti-ship missiles within a few minutes (if they could even get into a position to threaten a Soviet ship to begin with) and that's that.

Only another battleship can penetrate the magazines of a battleship. High explosives simply cannot get that deep in the ship, by design. Maybe some supersized dedicated armor penetrating missile could do it, but armor penetrating missiles stopped being a thing when armor did.

>Okay, and what happens if you substitute different ships on either side?

Probably the same result because the main issue at Jutland was the fact that the Germans were simpering cowards who cried and went home the minute the British started shooting back.

>Only another battleship can penetrate the magazines of a battleship.

Literally any torpedo was capable of sinking a battleship, and many did. It doesn't matter if you make the battleship's magazines explode or not, as long as you put it on the seafloor you've done your job.

why the hell would you shoot HE at another ship, they would have used AP

>When you can be hit over and over again with missiles without the ability to return fire
If a fleet of 80 battleships and 400 escort vessels appeared on any modern nations coast which ones have enough heavy anti-shipping missiles at hand to take them out?

Not that guy but he clearly said "HE was not considered viable for BB duels"

So?

That's fine. You don't seem to understand the scenario I'm outlining in which battleships are useful. They aren't acting as the front line capital ship. They would be part of a carrier group, escorting. If the Soviets pushed the dozens of missiles required to sink Iowa or mission kill her, those missiles aren't targeting the carrier. Iowa probably survives after a lot of damage control and extensive repairs, the carrier is unscathed, and the Soviets kill nothing useful. That's what I mean by a "tank" role.

And if they don't shoot all those missiles at the Iowa? Well, even Iowa had Tomahawks and Phalanx galore.

You're right, torpedoes were and still are a serious threat to any modern warship. Including carriers. If an enemy submarine sneaks up on your carrier group and unloads into a battleship, then you thank the lord it didn't choose the carrier.

>Confusing Tirpiz for Bismark

Attached: 2334723437.png (400x256, 63K)

>If a fleet of 80 battleships and 400 escort vessels appeared on any modern nations coast

I'm not going to respond to such an absurd hypothetical. There haven't even been 80 battleships in the entire world at any point in history.

> they would have used AP
Ach gut, you can read, yes
>.."and HE was not considered viable for BB duels"

>HE was not considered viable for BB duels

In 1912.

How many nations have enough heavy anti-ship weapons to take out 30 battleships at once reliably?

>Well, even Iowa had Tomahawks and Phalanx galore.

Not during the cold war they didn't. That was afterwards.

The tomahawks they did have were not the anti-ship variety and phalanx is a pretty awful system, intended only as a last-resort against sea-skimming missiles so close to the ship that by the time you spot them you should be thinking about abandoning the boat. They are not the magical anti-missile shield so many people seem to think they are.

Unironically the Mikasa.

Without it, the Japanese would not have won Tsushima. People make the argument that Tsushima could have been won even if you replace Mikasa with one of the lighter cruisers, but that’s bullshit. As good as the tactics of the Japanese were (and as bad as those of the Russians were) Japan still needed the Mikasa to help seal the deal.

After that? Everything else was useless. Every battleship that was laid down after 1905 was basically a waste of steel. Every nation could have used their resources more wisely by not spending them on battleships (UK should have built more long range destroyers and cruisers, Germany should have built more subs, Japan should have built more aircraft carriers, etc)

And modern cruise missiles usually have a smaller high explosive payload than a battleship gun from 1912.

Are you learning yet?

This is as dumb as the blind BB hate, fucking nobody can afford double digit battleships. If they're useful it's in ones and twos or not at all.

The US did not lack in carriers late in the war. They actually had to cancel a bunch because they dont really need them anymore.

I agree partially but you seem to be comparing the final configuration of the Iowa to modern standards. A "modern battleship" (not an arsenal ship meme) or even just properly refitted Iowa would carry at least triple digit VLS cells, and more effective modern point defense like SeaRAM, ESSM, and Goalkeeper.

Also, there's no reason Iowa couldn't carry antiship Tomahawks, the launcher was the same.

>nobody can afford double digit battleships.
There were like 70 capital ships present at Jutland, imagine if Germany had won WW1 hard

>take out 30 battleships at once

When is this ridiculous scenario ever going to happen? Do you even know how many battleships are in service in the entire world today? Zero. And do you understand why? Because there is nothing a battleship can do that another ship class cannot do better. This was already true more than a hundred years ago and it is still true today.

How does any of that anything to do with question being asked fucktard?

The reason I'm not theorizing about "modern battleships" is because they do not exist. I'm referring to the Iowas because they were the last battleships that did exist. I'm not going to sit here and write science fiction about magic ships that nobody built. I already know the reasons why nobody has built them and the only cause I would have to ignore these reasons would be because I have some illogical hardon for battleships, which I don't. They were a stupid ship class a hundred years ago and they remain a stupid ship class today.

I'm explaining to you why I refuse to answer your question...are you twelve years old? Is this the first time you have ever conversed with another human being? What about this is so complicated for you and why am I expected to hold your hand and pat your ass when you say things that are so obviously stupid that I won't even respond to them? I'm not your mom. I don't care. Move along and find someone else to indulge you.

>They were a stupid ship class a hundred years ago and they remain a stupid ship class today.
They will come back when we got space navies and multiple independent stellar polities

And a modern battleship would cost approximately a billion trillion fuck you dollars. Or at least as much as a Ford. Capital ships aren't cheap, yo.

>I accept blindly that modern naval doctrine has not changed in the slightest since WW2 and that the sinking of the Yamato accurately reflects modern technologies. Furthermore, I acknowledge that literally no matter what you say I hate battleships. Always will, always have. I'll post more oil tankers being blown up to prove missiles are magical, and then I'll leave.
Oh okay then

Ships that can only shoot at things 15 miles away and miss 90% of the time will make even less sense in space.

So you work for boeing or something and can't bear to come to say out loud even US doesn't have enough weapons in it arsenal for something like that

>tfw if the Washington Naval Treaty hadn’t been signed we would’ve had 20in guns on kilometer long battleships

We live in the worse timeline

>I accept blindly that modern naval doctrine has not changed in the slightest since WW2

Well, that sounds like a serious mental disability that you will have to work on. I'm glad I don't have that problem and actually know something about the subject under discussion.

You wouldn't mount a 460mm chemical-explosive guns on a space ship silly user, think more like 1 gram projectiles, missiles and laser/x-ray/gamma ray lasers both ship mounted and bomb pumped pulse missiles

>So you work for boeing or something

This has got to be the most bizarre and pathetic response I've ever received in all my years of arguing with people about this subject.

H-44 now

Attached: H-44.png (1024x485, 541K)

You either work for boeing or someone or are mentally ill since you won't leave me alone or can't answer a simple question

>80 battleships
well you shouldn't have gone to war with every single major naval power in the world then

I was quoting the logical implications of your own post. If you disagree, feel free to express your beliefs like an adult instead of continuing to post BIG GUN BAD.

Those guns look pretty thin for 20inchers

Yeah but if you have modern anti-ship weapons they shouldn't be a problem, right?

>I was quoting

I never said any of that. A quote is a direct copy of something someone wrote. What you were in fact doing was creating a strawman by putting words in my mouth, so I made fun of you for being an idiot who would do that. It's not necessary for me to respond to you any further because it's clear that there's nothing in it for me.

>how would the US army deal with fighting off 5 billion tanks at once? oh you can't answer me? clearly a fucking Raytheon shill

Its a big ship

The boat is very big

Still not answering the question, 80 +75 year old ships shouldn't be that fucking difficult to stop

If you don't want words put in your mouth, consider posting less open ended conclusions about things and more actual reasons for your beliefs. I have no reason to assume you carry anything more than a surface level understanding of the concepts involved, because this is Jow Forums.

>Anti-BBfags cucked my state out of being the lead ship namesake for the biggest baddest motherfuckers ever made
>Now only state to never have a battleship
>Now all we get is a fast attack sub

Attached: 1503146788178.jpg (3380x1679, 775K)

kek

>Catamaran

Why?

For the price of 80 Iowas in 1945 dollars you could buy 160,000 Shermans, which is indeed easy to stop (BRRRT)

Attached: 430.jpg (699x485, 60K)

aside from the logistical impossibility of 80 battleships being sortied by a single navy, let alone existing, no, they wouldn't be. just considering the anti ship missile capabilities of surface ships, the US navy could field 8714 anti ship missiles, over 100 per battleship. this completely ignores air power, which makes up most of the anti ship capability of the US military. those battleships, as implausible as their mere existence would be, don't stand a snowballs chance in hell

the whole thing is obviously some deviantart-tier autism and your only issue is the hull configuration?

the guy who pieced that together in sketchup probably draws sonic the hedgehog vore fanfics on the side, it's not proper of you to question things like this user. just continue scrolling and try to forget what you saw.

>And modern cruise missiles usually have a smaller high explosive payload than a battleship gun from 1912.

Most "Modern" cruise missiles, from 1960 had more explosive filler than a V2 rocket. An actual Anti Ship missile can rip out a whole ship deck if it has not already obliterated everything top side.

Can 1960s cruise missiles hit moving targets?

>You could make a case for Tirpitz being the last useful battleship although Germany wouldn’t have been even remotely weakened without it.
Retarded germaboo.

Iowa was useful, and had things turned out just a little bit differently, would have been crucial in certain stages of the war. But really, it was the 1910-1930 class of battleships.

based BRRRTposter

Attached: Ohshitwhatup.png (1192x762, 368K)

Only at first. By the late 70s, this wasnt true.

>Iowa was useful

When?

>Iowa was useful

Elaborate

The German built Chinese Ironclads Dingyuan and Zhenyuan
>Be Chinese navy 1890 Sino war
>Qing Dynasty takes all funding to build a palace
>Most officers got their positions due to political connections
>Incompetent as fuck and the admiral knows it
>Have to hire Western naval veteran expats to try to train some of these goons
>Most of the ammunition is fake, obsolete, too old, or made of concrete/papier-mâché
>I wish I was joking
>most of the gunpowder has flour or dirt in it
>weigh anchor anyways and prepare to confront the highly determined and better trained/funded japs in a massive battle for control of the entire yellow sea
>engagement begins early in the morning
>chinese captains can’t read naval signals (pre radio era)
>too late to fix it as the japs begin their first bombardment
>by midday chinese fleet is surrounded
>most ships are either burning, sunk, combat ineffective or fleeing the battle
>except for Dingyuan and her sister Zhenyuan
>who luckily have the handful of western veterans to rally the gun crews to continue firing and extinguish the flames caused by jap exploding shells (often by themselves)
>armor on the 2 German built ironclad battleships is too thick for the jap guns to penetrate
>12. Inch guns heavily damage the lightly armored jap ships
>but rate of fire is garbage because the crew can’t find ammunition that works (or is the right size)
>example: a jap cruiser was struck by one such 12inch shell which penetrated all the way through and smacked into a loaded torpedo tube on the opposite end of the ship only for it to crack open and reveal the concrete plug where the explosive charge should have been
>continue fighting till sunset but nearly out of ammunition because fucking chinese
>the 2 battleships manage to escape as nights falls
>battle ends with decisive Japanese victory
The only reason why the chinese fleet didn’t suffer complete annihilation was due to the presence of the 2 ironclads

Attached: BFC53902-348F-4195-B5C4-C4EBE4379993.jpg (741x533, 115K)

Thanks for history lesson, user

Anymore naval greentexts?

If Britain didnt have Battleships, the HSF would have rolled right into their faces and smashed the Home Fleet to smithereens

America, Russia, possibly China.

You know "topside" doesn't matter on an all-or-nothing battleship, right?
>oh no they blew off the galley
The most you can do is blind it by destroying RADAR, but that's easily offloaded to the rest of the task group.

No, all Britain would have had to do was sink a single capital ship and the Germans would have run home...which is exactly what happened in the real world.

Brits lost over twice as many men and almost twice the tonnage

If there had been more of a parity in numbers it would've been a resounding German victory

Attached: consider_the_following3.png (800x424, 293K)

Interestingly destroyers were actually pretty decent at providing fire support, they pretty much saved the day during the invasion of Sicily. Probably because they were practically running aground to engage with direct fire.

The reality is that the Germans ran away the minute the British started shooting back, and never attempted to engage the British at any other time during the entire war. They were unwilling to fight an actual battle at sea. All the technical details in the world are meaningless if you lack the willpower to employ them.

If we return to your original assertion here it doesn't speak very highly of the German fleet if their only possible chance of victory relied upon twenty eight enemy ships magically not existing.

>They were unwilling to fight an actual battle at sea.
Different user but thats because they had less ships so more risky and losing one hurts you more than your enemy

Well by that logic they never should have gone to sea to begin with. HSF had 99 ships and lost 11 to the HF's 151 floated and 14 lost. If the Germans really thought they were going to get a better ratio than that, well...I guess that explains why they lost two world wars in a row.

The Germans never planned to attack the Grand Fleet. They wanted to bait Beatty and his battlecruisers into an engagement, and crush them. British naval intelligence caught wind of that plan. The ships involved were almost irrelevant.

>If the Germans really thought they were going to get a better ratio than that
Its called "defeat in detail"

A modern nuclear powered battleship need not be either horrifically expensive nor useless. The only reason not to build one is that nobody else has.

Yeah, because all that fuckhuge stuff everyone was building between the wars worked real well, right?

Attached: Char 2C.jpg (1280x960, 483K)

No other type of ship has spawned more circlejerks,
so I would argue they excel in memetic warfare.

See pic for further details.

Attached: 1563140207632.png (1280x720, 811K)

French actually had better thanks than the Germans .. And more of them

Attached: v3nZJr3.jpg (531x657, 28K)

Really missing the point entirely, aren't we? Like, so far over your head it's now locked in low earth orbit.

Your entire point was "big things bad" so he's not missing anything by missing your point. Or are you against supercarriers, too?

Attached: 1562961046224.png (1216x1280, 1.25M)

And who do you propose be the first?