Poll of the Day > What is the function of naval battleships?

(+) Yeah! (+)

What I mean is, a battleship can't really stand on its own... well it can, but like an aircraft carrier it needs a fleet of frigates and smaller ships

So I'm wondering if a battleship is worth the extra cost over taking just more frigates and stuff.

...

...

Then again, outside of movies I don't even know if heavy battleships are even used any more since the rise of the aircraft carrier, and aircraft carrier's improved zone of influence greatly outweighs the cost of taking a larger fleet of smaller ships
---

YOU EVER SEE DADDY WHEN HE's FUCKING PISSED!?
---

Having warships is kinda useful when you invade by sea. And these things basically function as mobile fortresses, making it easier to secure an area.
---

Battleships became irrelevant once aircraft carriers were feasible and haven't seen much use since the 40s. The US doesn't use them at all anymore.
---

funkyfritter posted...

Battleships became irrelevant once aircraft carriers were feasible and haven't seen much use since the 40s. The US doesn't use them at all anymore.

Ah, so this is a legit case of "only in the movies"
---

I actually did a project on Battleships in school when I was a kid!

I don't know about cost, but its correct that they no longer see use in warfare. Japan invested heavily in building the biggest battleships in the world, and specifically prioritized American battleships in their attack on Pearl Harbour. Then American aircraft carriers sank their battleships before they could even get off their shots.

I remember that it wasnt really believed by most experts that planes were capable of sinking warships until the US did so in a test, but I could be misremembering, I was like 12.
---

While they didn't do much fighting post ww2 battleships had a very visible presence during the cold war. They were often showcased in propaganda and parked where they could apply political pressure, which is probably why they've remained so prominent in movies and pop culture.
---

Historians have looked at battleships and feel that the cost of them to what they did wasn't worth the investment. The naval doctrine at the time was that by having large capital ships it would lead to decisive victory which they would play a major role in. But this never was the case.

funkyfritter posted...

While they didn't do much fighting post ww2 battleships had a very visible presence during the cold war. They were often showcased in propaganda and parked where they could apply political pressure, which is probably why they've remained so prominent in movies and pop culture.

Nope. Most nations cancelled their battleship projects after the war and scrapped their remaining ships soon after. The US just used its four battleships as fire support in Korea/Vietnam/Gulf War. But it wasn't really anything more than still trying to get some work out of them.
---

I still think they could have some use to shell a coastline but that's about it. But planes from a carrier could do that better and have the range to go deeper.

If they mounted a shit ton of mid to long range missiles on them instead of heavy guns they would be more useful. Carriers have missiles but they are all surface to air defensive.
---

KeijiMaedaTiger posted...

I still think they could have some use to shell a coastline but that's about it. But planes from a carrier could do that better and have the range to go deeper.

If they mounted a shit ton of mid to long range missiles on them instead of heavy guns they would be more useful. Carriers have missiles but they are all surface to air defensive.

If we ever went to war with a serious power we would probably start making things like this.

---

Lokarin posted...

funkyfritter posted...

Battleships became irrelevant once aircraft carriers were feasible and haven't seen much use since the 40s. The US doesn't use them at all anymore.

Ah, so this is a legit case of "only in the movies"

Are you sure you're even thinking of the right ships? Because the US Navy *has* a lot of ships that aren't just aircraft carriers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_ships_of_the_United_States_Navy
---

Miroku_of_Nite1 posted...

KeijiMaedaTiger posted...

I still think they could have some use to shell a coastline but that's about it. But planes from a carrier could do that better and have the range to go deeper.

If they mounted a shit ton of mid to long range missiles on them instead of heavy guns they would be more useful. Carriers have missiles but they are all surface to air defensive.

If we ever went to war with a serious power we would probably start making things like this.

That's exactly what I had in mind. Like exactly. Well the engine would be nuclear, but yeah.
---

Back in the day Battleships carried the heaviest and largest number of guns. This not only allowed them to bombard coastlines extremely effectively but the heavier shells and increased firepower allowed them to rupture most armor on ships. As a result you'd basically build your fleets with them as the centerpiece since they could easily do the most damage but needed proper support.

Now-a-days, they have become increasingly pointless. Most conflicts involving a force large enough to field a battleship are against a force that, decidedly, cannot. Even when they may be relevant aircraft carriers have proven themselves to be more valuable and effective as a capitol ship meaning most nations would rather just have an aircraft carrier. Especially since the craft it contains can preform a variety of tasks.

The thing is that there hasn't been a clash of powerful nations since WWII. As a result even the aircraft carrier mindset might be extremely outdated but there has yet to be a war where it could be viably challenged.
---

They help keep the belly button clean and free of debris
---

Lokarin posted...

Ah, so this is a legit case of "only in the movies"

Mainly a term confusion and writers usually not knowing what each ship type's function is.
---