| |
In lugnet.general, Steve Hickman wrote:
| |
| |
True. But the Soviets (and now the Russians) might disagree; the Kirov and
her sisters? are sometimes classed as “battleships” or “battlecruisers.”
We in the US more often call them “very heavy cruisers” or “command ships.”
all best
LFB
|
Well actually, Russian/Soviet classifications of warships were slightly
skewed to gain a ‘numerical’ superiority over the United States Navy. By
announcing the construction of a battleship/battlecruiser, they could claim a
superiority in warship tonnage and class to the American fleet. The Kirov
class ships are equipped with 130mm (about 5.1 inch) guns, which by the WWI
through Cold War rating system qualifies them as Heavy Cruisers.
|
But this is the US naval classification system (or perhaps Jane’s)--and it is
therefore that also used by those of us operating in retrospect. Remember that
German battleships and battlecruisers in WWI (and in WWII--Scharnhorst
and Gneisenau in particular) mounted weapons of 11” bore or even
smaller. Not all, of course, and the trend was towards larger calibres,
but the notation of “battleship” is a relative one and not absolute. It had
more to do with role than with the specific qualities possessed, and those that
persisted after WWII were still coined “battleships” only because they started
life that way (not that there was a role for them anyways); reclassing them as
“fire support vessels” or somesuch would have been a severe insult to good Navy
men (like my father, who served aboard Missouri). By the standards of the
anti-ship combat role, the Kirovs were in the 1980s more “battleship” in the
classic sense than the Iowas ever actually got to be.
| |
In
addition, the Kirovs primary weapon systems are anti-ship and cruise
missiles, which signifies them as guided missile ships. A battleship on the
otherhand, requires at least 12 inch guns to be classed as such. While the
Iowas did receive vertical launch systems with tomahawks and harpoon
anti-ship missiles at the end of their lifespans, it was still their large 16
inch guns that qualified them as battleships. Finally, the Kirovs do not
meet battlecruiser standards again because of their relative small gun size
and heavier armor than a true battlecruiser. The last true battlecruiser was
the Alaska class, of which two were completed.
|
But if you look at the various proposals for completion of the
Iowa-class BB Kentucky, some of which if memory serves did
eliminate the HG altogether, they still refer to it as “BB”
(though with suffixes at times). It wasn’t until the mid-1960s
that the guided missile was really placed in that other category.
The same (again, if memory serves) held true for various completion
scenarios for Hawaii, the third of the Alaskas. Weren’t
the Alaskas reclassed as “large cruisers” at some point in their
careers anyways?
| |
Er, sorry about that. The short answer is that, no, there are no battleships
left. They proved too costly for modern nations to maintain, especially with
the availability of long range strike missiles and aircraft. And the Kirov
class is defined by the U.S. Navy as a Heavy Guided Missile Cruiser.
|
I was simply pointing out that what you define as a “battleship”
depends on who’s doing the defining and when; in part to make
the case that the demise of the “battleship” category has as much
to do with the end of the line-of-battle as it does with the demise
of the heavy gun, if not more, and the termination of the battleship’s “key
number” status for making comparisons in favor of the attack carrier. I doubt
anyone would deny that in surface naval combat, a WWII-vintage battleship would
not last long against the latest generation of surface combatants (even
destroyers!), and even if it did, the weapons systems supposedly defining the
“battleship” would not be the reason.
all best
LFB
(XFUT -> .ot.debate)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Lego seems to be copying Mega Blocks
|
| (...) Very true. But, even the Germans considered the Gneisenau and Scharnhorst something called 'Pocket Battleships.' This was a peculiar way to present a ship that was greatly outclassed by BBs and BCs. The Germans could thus claim Naval equality (...) (20 years ago, 24-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Lego seems to be copying Mega Blocks
|
| (...) Well actually, Russian/Soviet classifications of warships were slightly skewed to gain a 'numerical' superiority over the United States Navy. By announcing the construction of a battleship/battlecruiser, they could claim a superiority in (...) (21 years ago, 24-May-04, to lugnet.general, FTX)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
