Archive through September 30, 2025
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Non-Game Discussions: Real-World Military:
Archive through September 30, 2025
Also Jeff any captain that intentionally grounded a battleship would be grounded and never serve as a ship commander again.
Maybe Trump want to use the IOWA to do fire support for the NG in Chikago?
Orsini said:
"Hegseth just made explicitly clear that he wants to go back to bunk-flipping, profanity-spewing, recruit-punching drill sergeants."
What the SecWar really said:
“To that point, basic training is being restored to what it should be: scary, tough and disciplined. We’re empowering drill sergeants to instill healthy fear in new recruits, ensuring that future war-fighters are forged,” Hegseth said during his speech.
“Yes, they can shark attack, they can toss bunks, they can swear, and yes, they can put their hands on recruits. This does not mean they can be reckless or violate the law, but they can use tried-and-true methods to motivate new recruits to make them the warriors they need to be.”
A commenter suggested Hegseth had watched Full Metal Jacket. (A great movie.) Is that a good way to train people?
SVC: in that case, we obviously need to start building torpedo rams.
I went through basic just at the end of the "hands on" era; we actually switched to the "hands off" rules during my training but our platoon voted unanimously to let SFC Carr continue the old methods. My right hand still hurts where a stick he carried smacked me every time I reached overhand for the M60 charging handle. (That's a good way to lose your thumb.)
Moving swiftly through the waters
Cannons blazing as she came
Brought a mighty metal warlord
Crashing down in sheets of flame
Jeff the only Iowa class grounded was the Missouri in 1950 in Chesapeake Bay took 2 weeks to get her off. about 5 days to repair, the total bill was about 225000 dollars in 1950 funds(about 3 mil today). They say the court martial was not pretty.
Eddie:
Upon review I see I did misremember the details.
The Actual ship involved was U.S.S. Texas, BB -35, armed with five twin 14 inch gun turrets, and you are quite correct, no stranding in the mud was involved.
D-day June 1944.
The ships guns were unable to hit a distant target, so a compartment was flooded, which changed the ship’s position and hence inclination of the main gun Battery.
The intentional list slightly increased the elevation of the weapons barrels, thus allowing the target to be reached.
Thank you for pointing out my error.
“After arriving in Normandy in early June 1944, the USS Texas and the British cruiser HMS Glasgow (C21) entered the Omaha Beach western fire support lane, near Pointe du Hoc. She was one of 702 ships in the US-British flotilla, and one of just seven battleships.
Texas began firing 14-inch shells in support of the 29th Infantry Division and the 2nd and 5th Ranger Battalions. Within a span of just 34 minutes, she’d fired 255 shells – a shocking comparison to the 300 the vessel had fired during the entirety of Operation Torch. Texas then shifted her focus to more inland targets as the Allies moved from the landing beaches. Just 2,700 meters from shore, the battleship continued to bombard German positions throughout June 7-8.
After briefly returning to England, Texas arrived back in Normandy on June 15. By then, the Allied forces had already pushed farther inland and out of her range; the ship’s large guns couldn’t aim high enough to launch shells where they were needed. As fire missions continued to be requested, the crew needed to think outside the box. If the port side guns couldn’t be raised any further, then the starboard side needed to be lowered.
To lower the starboard side, the crew intentionally flooded the torpedo blister, lowering Texas an extra two degrees into the water. This was just the right angle for the battleship’s guns to fire accurately and complete the mission. Most vessels would never voluntarily flood part of their hull, but this daring move embodied the spirit the Allied forces showed at Normandy, which allowed for the operation to be victorious.”
Wikipedia.
I have walked the decks and climbed the superstructure and entered Q-turret of the Texas. Went down into the bowels. She's currently undergoing a massive restoration and having much of the deck replaced after they repaired the rusted out hull bottom.
Jeff,
Just out of curiosity, where are you getting those 16-inch shells from? My understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that the remaining stockpiles were demilled at Crane a few years ago. Do we have any 16-inch ammo still in servicable condition?
If not, where will you get it? I believe (again, correct me if you think I'm wrong) that there is no ammunition plant anywhere that is capable of currently producing such ammo, certainly not in bulk.
So besides spending years, and boatloads of cash, to get a battleship back into servicable condition, you would be spending additional boatloads of cash to construct the tooling and production lines just to be able to construct the ammunition.
No doubt it could be done... eventually...
President Trump has no filter and says anything that comes into his head, practical or not. Greenland, War Department, Battleships.
This was a much needed ‘Commander’s Call’ to let them know face-to-face that political correct, DEI, and woke policies in the military are dead, that objective standards will be met, and that leaders will be held accountable. This was a very clear message from his lips to their ears that he will not tolerate unfit troops, top to bottom; no more beards or delusional dudes wearing women’s dresses; and that sensitivity, motherhood, ‘administrivia’, bureaucratic, or ‘pencil-whipping’ training programs are to be eliminated. No leader THERE can claim that they didn’t understand his directives and that he is in charge and they are accountable to constitutional civilian authorities. We are to train warriors who a prepared to prevent or win our wars.
Well done and well said Secretary of War Hegseth! Keep preaching it brother!
Keep the focus of bombs on target, hot lead down range, preparation, lethality and destruction. Ignore the contemptible whimpy whiners.
1) Battleships;
Given President Trumps tendency to make big statements, I suspect he is speaking of producing a new series of ships, not reactivating the four Iowas.
2) Training;
If they want to return to conscript training methods, I would suspect a return to a conscript army. Given the rise of AI, this may be a move to limit unemployment.
3) Texas tilt;
This was a known tactic dating back to at least the age of sail. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the Romans didn't do this with onagers and catapults, given their engineering capabilities.
I hate to say it, but I think reactivating the four old ships would be the better cost option.
I am not saying the cost will be cheap - a new nuclear powered CVs will seem like a cheaper option.
Starting point will be can any steel works in the world actually make the plate armour?
Same point for the main guns - the 8” land based guns we make are peashooters in comparison.
Training will be an issue too…. But that would affect both using old ships and new ships.
So as per the old joke - you ask for a miracle and are told no.
Ask for the impossible and suddenly the Miracle is doable!!
General thoughts on reactivating the Iowas:
GOOD
1. Incredibly hard to sink, or even mission-kill, with anything short of a nuke. Does anyone have a weapon, other than the 16" guns on the Iowas, capable of piercing 6-12" of high-quality armor plate? A torpedo to the stern (props / rudders) would be about the only way to get a good mission kill.
2. Ability to carry a massive load of weapons. IIRC, the 1980s reactivations included installation of launchers for 32 tomahawk cruise missiles and 16 harpoon anti-shipping missiles and there is enough space that you could probably install more if you wanted to.
3. There is very little that can put the fear of god into an enemy within 20 miles of a coast than the thought of 16" artillery targeted on them. There is fairly famous video from the first gulf war of Iraqi troops trying to surrender to a drone that was being used to spot fire for one of the battleships. They had figured out that where the drone went, 16" shells followed, and everyone died.
BAD
1. Age. They're physically 80+ years old and operationally (time since last refit) 40+ years old.
2. Manpower hogs.
3. Limited flexibility. Modern cruisers and destroyers with VLS missile arrays can be easily configured for different missions (AA, ASW, anti-shipping, land attack) just by changing the missile load-out. The Iowas are pretty much stuck with whatever configuration they would be upgraded to.
4. Do we have the necessary consumables (particularly shells and barrel liners) that would be needed to keep them operationally useful?
One kind of cool idea that was proposed when the Iowas were reactivated back in the 80s was to remove the aft turret and turn the aft deck into helicopter landing facilities and hangers. You then add a bunch of marines and have a aviation landing ship with its own really scary artillery support.
A Nuclear-powered battleship would have the power to use railguns. That might be a plus..
At the end of the day, railguns are not feasible at this time, for a few reasons:
* Nobody has been able to build one at full scale that can fire more than a few dozen rounds without major deformations of the barrel.
* The projectiles cannot be fitted with guidance systems at this time, because they cannot survive the energy of firing, and have proven horribly inaccurate without guidance.
* The energy levels required for a single firing are such that the weapon cannot be readied for another firing against before the capacitors are recharged, and that takes significantly longer than either reloading a standard naval gun or reloading a missile launcher.
I'll offer a counteropinion to that of Raider above (yeah, I know, everyone hide your surprise), since he has seen fit to "go there".
This was an expensive and unnecessary exercise in overactive jingoism and phallus-waving, one which actually interfered with hurricane preparations by the military in the southeastern U.S. as well as operations elsewhere. It was primarily a political rally conducted under a cellophane-thin veneer of a Commander's Call, particularly in regards to some nine-tenths of the President's hour-long ramble, but also with regard to the Secretary's insults flung at the past five decades of the U.S. military. It was the most extreme and bloated example of "this should have been an email" ever produced by the United States government.
Oh, and one more thing, about that laser-focus on grooming and looking like soldiers out of "central casting":
Historically, wars have started with commanders who embodied that concept: the tall, chiseled fellows who looked exactly what you'd expect to see in a movie, and who have drilled throughout peacetime on spit-and-polish policy and procedure. Those fellows are, with few exceptions, not the ones who are in command at the end of the war; they've been replaced by guys who may not look the part but can actually think outside of the box enough to fight a war in competent fashion.
Jessica, you “went there” first. Everyone needs to take a step back.
Thank you Jess.
From Murphy's Laws of Infantry Combat:
No combat-ready unit ever passed inspection and no inspection-ready unit ever passed combat.
Alan Trevor:
Back in the 1980’s thru 2000, I had a subscription to U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings magazine, which published a number of articles supporting bringing the Iowa class ships back into service.
Everything from adding a flight deck and operating Harriers to removing the rear 16 inch gun turret to make room for several options for missiles.
One even wanted to swap out the ten 5” 38 cal twin gun mounts and replace them with the single rapid fire light weight 8” gun that was tested on the destroyer U.S.S. hull. (And I am sorry, don’t remember what hull number she had.)
Part of the theme was an article on modern munitions for the main gun battery.
And yes, I have heard the argument about how expensive it would be.
Note: it is a standard tactic trotted out by bureaucrats opposed to anything that competes with their own pet projects.
Can’t send a man to the moon, too expensive. (Tell that to JFK!)
Can’t compete with the U.S.S.R. The Russian Economy is too powerful. (Tell that to Ronald Regan.)
Can’t colonize Mars. (Elon Musk obviously disagrees. He just might be able to get it done.)
You might want to remember that the Admirals in charge of Navy development tended to be aviation / carrier officers.
Of Course they concluded any project to return the battleships to service is not viable.
Certainly, the U.S. Marine Corps might have a different opinion, Given that they appreciate quality gunfire support.
