Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yeah, but thats why you'd be saturating the area with shells. If Battleships in WW2 could hit each other, then battleships armed with railguns will be able to hit each other. Especially when your projectiles are much faster.

And the argument that it can be crippled is somewhat of a non-argument. So can aircraft carriers, but their planes will get made almost obsolete by anti-aircraft lasers.


As for why you would build a battleship instead of a bunch of cruisers and destroyers armed with railguns. Smaller ships wouldn't be able to mount as large of railguns, nor would they have the armor to survive as many impacts. A battleship would be able to have a higher rate of fire while also taking hits.

Anti-aircraft lasers that can be defeated by a clouds and smog. Lasers are so unbelievable dependent on atmospheric conditions.

And if you are going to saturate a mobile target, better saturate it with missiles, so at least all of them will moving towards the target.

And the argument that something can be crippled is relevant to battleships because the concept of battleships is to be tanky. Aircraft carriers were never supposed to be tanky.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, but thats why you'd be saturating the area with shells. If Battleships in WW2 could hit each other, then battleships armed with railguns will be able to hit each other. Especially when your projectiles are much faster.

And the argument that it can be crippled is somewhat of a non-argument. So can aircraft carriers, but their planes will get made almost obsolete by anti-aircraft lasers.


As for why you would build a battleship instead of a bunch of cruisers and destroyers armed with railguns. Smaller ships wouldn't be able to mount as large of railguns, nor would they have the armor to survive as many impacts. A battleship would be able to have a higher rate of fire while also taking hits.

its power supply.
a bigger ship, could recharge faster. and well in theory if you can cool guns fast ernough fire more than the battleship standard of 2 rounds a minute.

by that you could maybe fire guns fast as you can charge and load ammo.

Plus with back up guns and power gen. it can keep firing despite damage if each gun had own power plants, shell rooms and such so one gun out, others still fuction.

Tyran wrote:
Anti-aircraft lasers that can be defeated by a clouds and smog. Lasers are so unbelievable dependent on atmospheric conditions.

And if you are going to saturate a mobile target, better saturate it with missiles, so at least all of them will moving towards the target.

And the argument that something can be crippled is relevant to battleships because the concept of battleships is to be tanky. Aircraft carriers were never supposed to be tanky.

If you have atmospheric conditions which are making lasers utterly useless, you've also got conditions where tracking the ship with a missile will be difficult.

Not to mention, missiles are horribly cost-inefficient. Which is the reason railguns and AA lasers are being developed. Missiles are simply a waste of money.

 whembly wrote:

Tyran wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:


eh, Donald Trump loves cool things, whats the harm in building one?
lol..

Well, Russia (and China) would love it, and Trump loves what Putin loves.

Of course, maybe no one told him that the reason Russians (and the Chinese) would love it is as a target for their anti-ship missiles.

It'll take more than one of those to sink the Iowa/Montana, according to Milblogs... that's if the anti-air fails.

The big reason why these ships aren't built anymore is that, they're slow. Which is kinda amazing, as you'd think they could've figure out how to make them faster.

Besides, is there a need for those cannons? Those won't go far inland...right?

Er.. no. Iowa class had no problem keeping up with fleet carriers. They aren't built any more because in the great game of carriers v.s battleships. Its carriers 15 or so / battleships 2 (1 British and 1 US Jeep carrier).

The reason battleships aren't built is because currently aircraft are king. Battleships are vulnerable to aircraft and missiles. When aircraft and missiles have a hard counter developed(lasers), their prey will return.

Really? I thought battleships were slower due to the extra armor (as they needed to get relatively close). Hence, one of the reason why the Montana plan was scrapped (that, and the war was wrapping up?).

EDIT: ninja'ed.

No slower than carriers at the time. The Montana was scrapped because carriers had proven their supremacy and the war wasretty much over at that point. IIRC the Yamato and her sister ship had already been sunk and there wasn't anything out there the Iowa couldn't handle.

A large attributing factor in the pacific was the US carriers not being at Pearl Harbour when the strike happened, which snowballs into the Battle of Midway and the rest of the campaign.

IS are bad.

 whembly wrote:
Really? I thought battleships were slower due to the extra armor (as they needed to get relatively close). Hence, one of the reason why the Montana plan was scrapped (that, and the war was wrapping up?).

EDIT: ninja'ed.

I suspect the reason the Montana was cancelled was, yes the war vs IJ was wrapping up, but we didn't know if WW2 Part Deux: Soviet Time! was a go or not,

By 1945, the writing on the wall was clear: Battleships were obselete. The Yamoto and the Bismark, designed to bring overwhelming force to bear vs other Battleships, were both sunk or crippled by airplanes.

It will be interesting to see if near future ship defense can defeat a cloud of missiles. Until then, any money put into Battleships is better spent on Carriers.

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Really? I thought battleships were slower due to the extra armor (as they needed to get relatively close). Hence, one of the reason why the Montana plan was scrapped (that, and the war was wrapping up?).

EDIT: ninja'ed.

I suspect the reason the Montana was cancelled was, yes the war vs IJ was wrapping up, but we didn't know if WW2 Part Deux: Soviet Time! was a go or not,

By 1945, the writing on the wall was clear: Battleships were obselete. The Yamoto and the Bismark, designed to bring overwhelming force to bear vs other Battleships, were both sunk or crippled by airplanes.

It will be interesting to see if near future ship defense can defeat a cloud of missiles. Until then, any money put into Battleships is better spent on Carriers.

Battleships were not obsolete. Their role as the primary surface warfare ship was. They were still highly important, especially after the Japanese naval capacity had been crippled, for the purposes we've been discussing the Zumwalt. Shore bombardment. For example.

Would not wanted to have been in that circular concrete spot that took what looks like 4-5 near miss strikes.

Even if you not hurt be shaken, deaf and pretty much non functional

 djones520 wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Really? I thought battleships were slower due to the extra armor (as they needed to get relatively close). Hence, one of the reason why the Montana plan was scrapped (that, and the war was wrapping up?).

EDIT: ninja'ed.

I suspect the reason the Montana was cancelled was, yes the war vs IJ was wrapping up, but we didn't know if WW2 Part Deux: Soviet Time! was a go or not,

By 1945, the writing on the wall was clear: Battleships were obselete. The Yamoto and the Bismark, designed to bring overwhelming force to bear vs other Battleships, were both sunk or crippled by airplanes.

It will be interesting to see if near future ship defense can defeat a cloud of missiles. Until then, any money put into Battleships is better spent on Carriers.

Battleships were not obsolete. Their role as the primary surface warfare ship was. They were still highly important, especially after the Japanese naval capacity had been crippled, for the purposes we've been discussing the Zumwalt. Shore bombardment. For example.

True, they still had a role as floating artillery. This required the Allies to have air supremacy, however.

Improved anti-air capabilities and anti-missile systems are all well and good, I used to think that really was what the battleship needed to make a comeback too. Still doens't fix the massive vulnerability to submarines though.

Alternatively, we could drop a battleship from orbit onto ISIS.

 Easy E wrote:
Alternatively, we could drop a battleship from orbit onto ISIS.

To be sure? Is it the only way?

Battleships are a silly concept at this point. Smaller vessels can mount similar grade weaponry and act as smaller, far more numerous and harder to acquire targets with and you dont lose 1500 dudes when they go down, and at a fraction of the cost

Battleships were never the weapons they were expected to be. They were always too expensive to risk, and their few clashes were rarely anything decisive or contributory to the greater war effort. The Battleship, as envisaged by Dreadnought on, never played a meaningful role in any wars outcome aside from "fleet in being" actions and as targets for aircraft. There's good reasons the entire concept died.

Another carnage in europe.... how long do we need to witness events such this one before finally acting?

I'm asking that too.

 Blackie wrote:
Another carnage in europe.... how long do we need to witness events such this one before finally acting?

So we should go off and invade Jamaica then?

 Blackie wrote:
Another carnage in europe.... how long do we need to witness events such this one before finally acting?

Well, you could argue that a guy in a fourbee with a knife is probably acting alone and thus under the radar of Security services who do act to surveil threats which are more often than not stopped.

Not ideal but not 'carnage'.

And since its this topic (again) It should go without saying that the deaths and injuries caused should not have happened.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Compel wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Another carnage in europe.... how long do we need to witness events such this one before finally acting?

So we should go off and invade Jamaica then?

We should go further. If there were no people of Jamaican decent there would be no one driving a fourbee into people on Westminster bridge today. Stands to reason.

(For clarity, I do not condone genocide, It should go without saying but, well....internet).

 whembly wrote:

It'll take more than one of those to sink the Iowa/Montana, according to Milblogs... that's if the anti-air fails.

The big reason why these ships aren't built anymore is that, they're slow. Which is kinda amazing, as you'd think they could've figure out how to make them faster.

Besides, is there a need for those cannons? Those won't go far inland...right?

No, the big reason they're not built anymore is they're slower than carriers, and not as useful during peace time. Remember that after WW2 the world went mad for carriers, and all battleships were measured by if they could keep up with carriers, hence why Iowas lasted so long. Carriers also have relatively more use in things like humanitarian missions. A battleship does just one thing, but it does it really well. So, more bang for the buck.


As far as 'far inland' the record hit in combat conditions was HMS Warspite connecting with RMS Giulio Cesare at 24km

Theoretical shot distance flies off into heaven. In the 1960's A 16.4" gun modified by HARP managed a few spectacular ranges over 100 miles with a 100' extended barrel and a sabot round, but there was no interest in developing a working version for the military as the Bomb solves all problems, or at least that was the working theory at the time.

Tyran wrote:

And armor is an obsolete concept for warships.

You know, I've heard this, but I've never seen it proven.

Point of fact, increasing penetration values tends to decrease missile performance, meaning that armor requires the missile to get bigger and easier to hit with a active defense.

Now, a lot of noise will probably be made about 'Missile X can Pen X inches of steel'. First of all, a lot of that is not actually true in most real world situations. Secondly, a battleship's Krupp processed belt armor alloys are to more common forms of steel armor what the Death Star would be compared to the ISS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Battleships are a silly concept at this point. Smaller vessels can mount similar grade weaponry and act as smaller, far more numerous and harder to acquire targets with and you dont lose 1500 dudes when they go down, and at a fraction of the cost

the Zumwalt costs as much as 2 Iowa class battleships, adjusted for cost. There are a few issues with the small ship swarm, as well. One, they carry nowhere near the firepower. A single Iowa carries, by the Navy's own admission, 20 times the firepower of a Zumwalt. You also run into the HMS Antelope issue where it's so assumed that a hit equates a loss that silly things like Damage Control become lost arts.

Worse, these unarmored leviathans are not actually getting smaller. Zumwalt is a destroyer that shares dimensions with the Mississippi class battleships. it's not something the Eyeball Mk1 is going to miss.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Battleships are a silly concept at this point. Smaller vessels can mount similar grade weaponry and act as smaller, far more numerous and harder to acquire targets with and you dont lose 1500 dudes when they go down, and at a fraction of the cost

Nothing new there. Look up the Chilean Armoured Cruiser Esmeralda or the Jeune Ecole.

Battleships were never the weapons they were expected to be. They were always too expensive to risk, and their few clashes were rarely anything decisive or contributory to the greater war effort. The Battleship, as envisaged by Dreadnought on, never played a meaningful role in any wars outcome aside from "fleet in being" actions and as targets for aircraft. There's good reasons the entire concept died.

Battleships were running about for a good fifty odd years before Dreadnought ever hit the waves. Battle of Lissa, Tsushima, etcetc. The main reason nobody really threw them around much is because of Pax Britannia, not because of issues with the concept.

Their problem these days is that they'd only be of use when either aerial superiority is guaranteed (meaning you can't whack 'em with enough custom designed bombs to send them in for lengthy repairs), or as part of a fleet action. Whilst America ticks the first box, look around. Who actually has fleets these days? America. *ticks* Who else?

...not many is the answer. Battleships aren't necessary because nobody but the British, the Americans, and (possibly) the Japanese and French maintain anything worthy of the word. And we're all best buds. Why would we waste large sums of money on arms that are only really of use to fight each other?

 Blackie wrote:
Another carnage in europe.... how long do we need to witness events such this one before finally acting?

Look at the bright side: since it wasn't in the US, the guy had no gun !
I support your proposition to ban 4-wheelers in town though.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

You know, I've heard this, but I've never seen it proven.

Point of fact, increasing penetration values tends to decrease missile performance, meaning that armor requires the missile to get bigger and easier to hit with a active defense.

Now, a lot of noise will probably be made about 'Missile X can Pen X inches of steel'. First of all, a lot of that is not actually true in most real world situations. Secondly, a battleship's Krupp processed belt armor alloys are to more common forms of steel armor what the Death Star would be compared to the ISS.

Yes, the belt armor... which is useless against missiles which don't hit the belt.

You could armor the deck, but that would increase the weight, make the battleship even slower and still do nothing against torpedoes.

Tyran wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

You know, I've heard this, but I've never seen it proven.

Point of fact, increasing penetration values tends to decrease missile performance, meaning that armor requires the missile to get bigger and easier to hit with a active defense.

Now, a lot of noise will probably be made about 'Missile X can Pen X inches of steel'. First of all, a lot of that is not actually true in most real world situations. Secondly, a battleship's Krupp processed belt armor alloys are to more common forms of steel armor what the Death Star would be compared to the ISS.

Yes, the belt armor... which is useless against missiles which don't hit the belt.

You could armor the deck, but that would increase the weight, make the battleship even slower and still do nothing against torpedoes.

No ship is immune or able to defend against torpedo attack easily. Everyone is prey to a sub.
And a Iowa class can do 30+ knots, a Montana was "slower" at 28.

There speed in heavy seas is probbly faster than lighter modern ships.
Finaly. With advancements in steel production we could probably make armour lighter than the WW2 steel if we wanted to.

Back to London.
Wr probbly should do what France did and not show there faces etc. Deny the terrorists here media attention in detail. Name yes, no faces.
They do not get there face around thr globe.

 jhe90 wrote:

[
No ship is immune or able to defend against torpedo attack easily. Everyone is prey to a sub.
And a Iowa class can do 30+ knots, a Montana was "slower" at 28.

There speed in heavy seas is probbly faster than lighter modern ships.
Finaly. With advancements in steel production we could probably make armour lighter than the WW2 steel if we wanted to.

But battleships are more vulnerable thanks to their low ranges (for a warship).

Which is another problem with battleships, they have very low weapon ranges. Even with railguns (which we don't have yet) they are still heavily out-ranged by missiles.

 jhe90 wrote:
And a Iowa class can do 30+ knots, a Montana was "slower" at 28. There speed in heavy seas is probbly faster than lighter modern ships. Finaly. With advancements in steel production we could probably make armour lighter than the WW2 steel if we wanted to.

Well, yes, but with aircraft (and missiles) being so good no one needs a battleship right now. It's really only useful for the niche task of bringing in 16-inch bombardment of some island or coast that you for some reason don't want to bomb from the air or use cruise missiles on. The same steel improvements could also be used to upgrade a carrier so why waste it on a battleship?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Another carnage in europe.... how long do we need to witness events such this one before finally acting?

Look at the bright side: since it wasn't in the US, the guy had no gun !
I support your proposition to ban 4-wheelers in town though.

Guns don't kill people, other people do. Banning weapons or restricting our freedom are not answers. There are no chinese, brazilians, jews, buddhists, finnish or italians that commit these kind of crimes, they all are muslims, we can't pretend they're just terrorists or people with mental problems. Force muslims to really become part of society by making them abandon some of their typical way of living (including the relationship with their religion, not their religion itself) or to send them away forever. Meanwhile we should fight extremisms in africa and asia, with wars where needed and refusing to help and deal with goverments that allow fanatism, like egypt, saudi arabia, qatar, iran...

 Blackie wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Another carnage in europe.... how long do we need to witness events such this one before finally acting?

Look at the bright side: since it wasn't in the US, the guy had no gun !
I support your proposition to ban 4-wheelers in town though.

Guns don't kill people, other people do. Banning weapons or restricting our freedom are not answers. There are no chinese, brazilians, jews, buddhists, finnish or italians that commit these kind of crimes, they all are muslims, we can't pretend they're just terrorists or people with mental problems. Force muslims to really become part of society by making them abandon some of their typical way of living (including the relationship with their religion, not their religion itself) or to send them away forever. Meanwhile we should fight extremisms in africa and asia, with wars where needed and refusing to help and deal with goverments that allow fanatism, like egypt, saudi arabia, qatar, iran...

Well.........

....There are no chinese, brazilians, jews, buddhists, finnish or italians that commit these kind of crimes....

http://world.time.com/2013/06/20/extremist-buddhist-monks-fight-oppression-with-violence/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_religious_terrorism

http://www.washingtonreport.me/2001-january-february/extremism-in-israel-is-fueled-by-a-growing-ultra-orthodox-movement-in-the-u.s.html

There really is more out there. Not that I expect you to look but we can try eh?

...or restricting our freedom are not answers...

...Force muslims to really become part of society by making them abandon some of their typical way of living (including the relationship with their religion, not their religion itself) or to send them away forever....

Not sure how freedom fits into your brave new world.