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.

 Peregrine wrote:

Xenomancers 721669 9278792 5dd4a6 wrote:I also disagree about the Germans. The high quality of their mar machines was one of the main reasons they had such early success - insane leadership is what did them in. If the germans focused on air superiority rather than wasting huge amounts of resources on attacking brittish cities with V1's/V2's - we would probably be living in a very different world.

No, what did them in was the sheer size of the US and Russia. Once the US and its massive advantage in industrial capacity entered the war Germany was doomed, and the only question was how long it would take for them to lose.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Imagine a similar layer being part of a battleship's armor(the bulk of which would be cheaper steel, but with one layer of composites).

The problem, besides the immense difficulty of adding enough armor to stop modern weapons without making a ship that is too heavy to function, is that you can't armor things like radar, gun barrels, etc. So you might be able to protect the crew and prevent the ship from sinking, but it's still going to be easy to mission-kill it and send it home to a shipyard for much longer than the realistic duration of a modern war.

The extreme strengh of the Iowa class was the fact the entire ship was built from high grade steel.
It meant thr internal structure was stringer than other nations unable to afford such a expense.

Building thr inner structure to cheep steel loses that advantage. Also high grade steel you could have a stronger or equal hull for less mass. Better ship.
True modern armour tech could restult in some areas of ship being extremely protected with areas like bow lighter to save weight.

US used the all or nothing armour schemes.

You're way overestimating the ability to aim for stuff like Radar and Gun barrels, and the ability to armor them.

You're also overestimating what modern missiles can actually do. As has been mentioned many times. Modern anti-ship missiles actually would fall flat on their face vs even a WW2 battleship's armor. Nobody today armors their ships, so no anti-ship missiles are able to penetrate much armor.

Railguns could also quite easily be completely contained, with no exposed parts other than the end of the barrel. You keep the entire barrel of the gun encased in an armored ball turret.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You're way overestimating the ability to aim for stuff like Radar and Gun barrels, and the ability to armor them.

You're also overestimating what modern missiles can actually do. As has been mentioned many times. Modern anti-ship missiles actually would fall flat on their face vs even a WW2 battleship's armor. Nobody today armors their ships, so no anti-ship missiles are able to penetrate much armor.

Railguns could also quite easily be completely contained, with no exposed parts other than the end of the barrel. You keep the entire barrel of the gun encased in an armored ball turret.

Or a nice domed turret. The gun encased in a slot and make it recessed back fairly deep into expose minimal barrel. Harder to damage thr barrels. With it set right you could raise a high angle shot and not still risk much damage. (the also added advatages of being wether proofed away)
It only needs thr gun and loading system on that level. Power supply can be several decks below and armoured down below the belt in the ships belly.

Munitions need no special storage as there non explosive. Not got same risk of magazine explosions HE rounds create.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You're way overestimating the ability to aim for stuff like Radar and Gun barrels, and the ability to armor them.

Who said anything about aiming directly? When a 1500lb warhead goes off it's going to damage exposed delicate bits. Remember, one major obstacle to getting the WWII-era battleships operational in any useful capacity was the fact that even firing their own guns would destroy the delicate modern hardware they needed.

(And that's just considering conventional weapons. If tactical nukes are an option mission-killing is almost inevitable.)

Nobody today armors their ships, so no anti-ship missiles are able to penetrate much armor.

Nope. The various Russian heavy anti-ship missiles have armor-piercing warheads, when they aren't using nukes. And if anyone actually started using heavily armored battleships again you can guarantee that new missile designs that prioritize armor penetration would appear.

Railguns could also quite easily be completely contained, with no exposed parts other than the end of the barrel. You keep the entire barrel of the gun encased in an armored ball turret.

Uh, no. That is a massive amount of extra armor required for a minimal gain in protection, and massive problems in aiming this ridiculously heavy ball of armor plate at a target. There's a reason real-world battleships had exposed gun barrels.

 Peregrine wrote:

Nope. The various Russian heavy anti-ship missiles have armor-piercing warheads, when they aren't using nukes. And if anyone actually started using heavily armored battleships again you can guarantee that new missile designs that prioritize armor penetration would appear.

And just for an example, the first guided bomb, the Fritz X, had no problem crippling battleships with single hits, and it two shot a battleship.

Tyran wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Nope. The various Russian heavy anti-ship missiles have armor-piercing warheads, when they aren't using nukes. And if anyone actually started using heavily armored battleships again you can guarantee that new missile designs that prioritize armor penetration would appear.

And just for an example, the first guided bomb, the Fritz X, had no problem crippling battleships with single hits, and it two shot a battleship.

Yes, but the Roma didn't have these.





Edit: For the record, it's scary as every living hell when you're outside and those things start going off...

Torpedoes are the real threat to all ships. We're taught that a ship can eat a few missiles and still float (maybe even limited fighting, situation/vessel dependent), but a torpedo is nearly always game over.

 Blacksails wrote:
Torpedoes are the real threat to all ships. We're taught that a ship can eat a few missiles and still float (maybe even limited fighting, situation/vessel dependent), but a torpedo is nearly always game over.

Torpedoes are basically instant death to a lot of ships.

 Peregrine wrote:

Xenomancers 721669 9278792 5dd4a6 wrote:I also disagree about the Germans. The high quality of their mar machines was one of the main reasons they had such early success - insane leadership is what did them in. If the germans focused on air superiority rather than wasting huge amounts of resources on attacking brittish cities with V1's/V2's - we would probably be living in a very different world.

No, what did them in was the sheer size of the US and Russia. Once the US and its massive advantage in industrial capacity entered the war Germany was doomed, and the only question was how long it would take for them to lose.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Imagine a similar layer being part of a battleship's armor(the bulk of which would be cheaper steel, but with one layer of composites).

The problem, besides the immense difficulty of adding enough armor to stop modern weapons without making a ship that is too heavy to function, is that you can't armor things like radar, gun barrels, etc. So you might be able to protect the crew and prevent the ship from sinking, but it's still going to be easy to mission-kill it and send it home to a shipyard for much longer than the realistic duration of a modern war.

Also the iconic German tanks came later in the war, in the beginning they mostly had light tanks and it was not the quality of the tanks but how they used them, some Russian tank designs and even french tanks were better armored at the beginning of the war.

 djones520 wrote:


Yes, but the Roma didn't have these.





Edit: For the record, it's scary as every living hell when you're outside and those things start going off...

And that's why you fire many missiles to overpower point defense.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Torpedoes are the real threat to all ships. We're taught that a ship can eat a few missiles and still float (maybe even limited fighting, situation/vessel dependent), but a torpedo is nearly always game over.

Torpedoes are basically instant death to a lot of ships.

Which again, isn't an argument against battleships. That applies to ALL ships. Its why Destroyer's exist, to hunt down those pesky submarines and keep them away from the big ships.

If "torpedoes are bad m'kay!" was a strike vs battleships, it would also be a strike vs carriers and any other ship besides destroyers.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Torpedoes are the real threat to all ships. We're taught that a ship can eat a few missiles and still float (maybe even limited fighting, situation/vessel dependent), but a torpedo is nearly always game over.

Torpedoes are basically instant death to a lot of ships.

Which again, isn't an argument against battleships. That applies to ALL ships. Its why Destroyer's exist, to hunt down those pesky submarines and keep them away from the big ships.

If "torpedoes are bad m'kay!" was a strike vs battleships, it would also be a strike vs carriers and any other ship besides destroyers.

When the argument is "armour is useless", it very much is an argument against battleships. The big strength of battleships are their armor, and if that is useless, then it serves no purpose. Some sort of missile battle-cruiser might make sense (like Russia's).

If "torpedoes are bad m'kay!" was a strike vs battleships, it would also be a strike vs carriers and any other ship besides destroyers.

No. Besides the fact that a battleship is defined by its armor range makes a huge difference. The carrier can launch attacks from a much longer distance, spending the whole time on random courses through a vast volume of empty ocean where the sub can't easily set an ambush. The battleship is a much easier target to catch.

Not to mention the carrier brings more ASW platforms to detect and deter the sub. The battleship would have at best a hangar for two ASW helos.

The idea of futuristic battleships is certainly being taken seriously.

http://www.popsci.com/what-will-battleship-future-look-like

I think it's far too early to see if such a concept has any practicality. It's aces in the cool factor of course.

 amanita wrote:
The idea of futuristic battleships is certainly being taken seriously.

http://www.popsci.com/what-will-battleship-future-look-like

I think it's far too early to see if such a concept has any practicality. It's aces in the cool factor of course.

that is one cool ship. Rule of cool has it already a plus point in my book.

 Blacksails wrote:
Not to mention the carrier brings more ASW platforms to detect and deter the sub. The battleship would have at best a hangar for two ASW helos.

And you people keep acting as if the Battleship is going to be going it solo. It will have other ships accompanying it, including escort carriers and destroyers who will be tasked with keeping submarines away. You know, exactly what the navy does with our big aircraft carriers right now.

The Battleship fills a sorely needed niche in the fleet. That of shore bombardment, that doesn't cost an absurd amount of money, while being able to take a hit if necessary. 220-400 miles of bombardment range is actually fairly comparable to ranges we have used carriers for airstrikes. Carriers aren't sending their aircraft out at maximum operating ranges usually.

A battleship with railguns with 220 miles of range could sit just off the coast of Israel and hit anywhere in Lebanon, Jordan, most of Syria, and most places of import in Egypt.

And nothing prevents a battleship that is moving from firing accurately. The guns would have gyro-stabilization on an already very stable platform.

 Grey Templar wrote:

The Battleship fills a sorely needed niche in the fleet. That of shore bombardment, that doesn't cost an absurd amount of money, while being able to take a hit if necessary.

You don't need a battleship to do that, nothing stops you for slapping a railgun to a cruiser or destroyer. So instead of having a few railguns in an absurdly large ship, you have several railguns distributed in several ships.

Same for the lasers, you don't need a large ship for that.

Tyran wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

The Battleship fills a sorely needed niche in the fleet. That of shore bombardment, that doesn't cost an absurd amount of money, while being able to take a hit if necessary.

You don't need a battleship to do that, nothing stops you for slapping a railgun to a cruiser or destroyer. So instead of having a few railguns in an absurdly large ship, you have several railguns distributed in several ships.

Same for the lasers, you don't need a large ship for that.

That's possible - they have a prototype railgun on a cruiser already - we will see how effective it is soon. I am going to assume after the railgun proves it's self that a large ship featuring many rail-guns with sufficient power generation is going to be bigger than anything we have on the sees right now. Also - the more power you can generate - the faster you can fire a projectile. So in this case bigger really is better.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Tyran wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

The Battleship fills a sorely needed niche in the fleet. That of shore bombardment, that doesn't cost an absurd amount of money, while being able to take a hit if necessary.

You don't need a battleship to do that, nothing stops you for slapping a railgun to a cruiser or destroyer. So instead of having a few railguns in an absurdly large ship, you have several railguns distributed in several ships.

Same for the lasers, you don't need a large ship for that.

That's possible - they have a prototype railgun on a cruiser already - we will see how effective it is soon. I am going to assume after the railgun proves it's self that a large ship featuring many rail-guns with sufficient power generation is going to be bigger than anything we have on the sees right now. Also - the more power you can generate - the faster you can fire a projectile. So in this case bigger really is better.

No it isn't when we already can power a railgun in a smaller ship and when there are far more factors than simple power involved. You have to make sure that the electric circuit can support greater loads, and that the gun itself doesn't overheat and can support the extra stress.

And even if you manage to do that, the increased rof must be high enough to justify having a railgun in a large ship instead of 5 railguns in 5 smaller ships.

Yes, you CAN put a railgun on a smaller ship. However the Railgun has major power consumption needs, which basically mandates you have a nuclear reactor. Which takes up a good chunk of space. Which in turn on a smaller ship means you've basically dedicated the entire ship to that railgun.

A large vessel like a Battleship has the space to have multiple reactors and multiple larger railguns, while still having space for other weapon systems. You completely lose this economy of scale on a small ship.

 jhe90 wrote:

 amanita wrote:
The idea of futuristic battleships is certainly being taken seriously.

http://www.popsci.com/what-will-battleship-future-look-like

I think it's far too early to see if such a concept has any practicality. It's aces in the cool factor of course.

that is one cool ship. Rule of cool has it already a plus point in my book.

Right? I like the idea that a future warship would combine the best elements of both aircraft carrier and battleship, but I would include submersible in that equation. Something that could bring heavy firepower, launch aerial offensive and defensive platforms and also submerge would be a nasty combination. I don't see why not a flotilla couldn't have submarine capabilities. High surface speeds combined with the ability to submerge and continue operations below? Yes, please. I can easily see in the future where drones will be a better choice than manned aircraft too - heck, this is practically true today (little concern for g-force, no need to provide for space and protection for a crew).

Now if we get carried away we can include retractable treads on this beast so it can go over land for short distances and not get locked by whatever body of water its in. And let's throw in a high speed auger on the nose for close attacks too!

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, you CAN put a railgun on a smaller ship. However the Railgun has major power consumption needs, which basically mandates you have a nuclear reactor. Which takes up a good chunk of space. Which in turn on a smaller ship means you've basically dedicated the entire ship to that railgun.

A large vessel like a Battleship has the space to have multiple reactors and multiple larger railguns, while still having space for other weapon systems. You completely lose this economy of scale on a small ship.

Except that the current plans for the railgun are putting them on the Zumwalt destroyer, and for that it means we have the technology to put railguns on destroyer sized ships without needing to dedicate all of it to the railgun.

Tyran wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, you CAN put a railgun on a smaller ship. However the Railgun has major power consumption needs, which basically mandates you have a nuclear reactor. Which takes up a good chunk of space. Which in turn on a smaller ship means you've basically dedicated the entire ship to that railgun.

A large vessel like a Battleship has the space to have multiple reactors and multiple larger railguns, while still having space for other weapon systems. You completely lose this economy of scale on a small ship.

Except that the current plans for the railgun are putting them on the Zumwalt destroyer, and for that it means we have the technology to put railguns on destroyer sized ships without needing to dedicate all of it to the railgun.

Perhaps not all of it, but most of it to where you have a ship that only has 1 primary weapon system.

Its far more cost effective to make a larger ship that can carry more of those weapon systems. Economies of scale applies here. Small =/= good.

 Peregrine wrote:

Uh, no. That is a massive amount of extra armor required for a minimal gain in protection, and massive problems in aiming this ridiculously heavy ball of armor plate at a target. There's a reason real-world battleships had exposed gun barrels.

Somebody forgot the Moncrieff Gun Mounting system.

More seriously, somebody could take a crack at an updated Staunch class gunboat modified to be a destroyer or something without much real effort. Wouldn't be a battleship, but stick enough of 'em together and you'd be able to lob out the firepower of one.

 Grey Templar wrote:


Perhaps not all of it, but most of it to where you have a ship that only has 1 primary weapon system.

Its far more cost effective to make a larger ship that can carry more of those weapon systems. Economies of scale applies here. Small =/= good.

The primary weapon system are missiles, which don't require power.

A large ship carrying multiple railguns also would be far more expensive, cost effectiveness matters little if the final cost is still prohibitively expensive.

Also it would be unreliable, as the last thing you want is a missile barrage crippling or outright sinking it.

Tyran wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


Perhaps not all of it, but most of it to where you have a ship that only has 1 primary weapon system.

Its far more cost effective to make a larger ship that can carry more of those weapon systems. Economies of scale applies here. Small =/= good.

A large ship carrying multiple railguns also would be far more expensive, cost effectiveness matters little if the final cost is still prohibitively expensive.

Also it would be unreliable, as the last thing you want is a missile barrage crippling or outright sinking it.

Due to the scale, the battleship would be the cheaper and more effective use of money. You might be able to get 3-4 railgun armed cruisers for the cost of a single railgun/laser defense battleship. But the battleship would have exponentially more firepower than the cruisers combined due to its size as it could mount 8-10 railguns instead of the 1 per cruiser.

And again with missiles. Lasers and other counter measures are going to make stuff like that not a viable method of crippling the battleship. And even if 1-2 got through, the battleship could take multiple hits and still be functional. You'd have to be insanely lucky to have 1-2 missiles make a modern battleship have to return to port for repairs.

I thought we went over the fact that a battleship is by definition a heavily armoured vessel. You can have a heavily armed vessel minus the armour, and it wouldn't be battleship so much as a battle cruiser (or just cruiser in more modern terminology).

There's no reason you couldn't fit a nuclear reactor on a cruiser or even frigate sized surface vessel to power these theoretical weapons we honestly don't even know much about. A Tyco is already 200ft longer than a nuke boat, and displaces almost 3k more tonnage. RCN frigates are roughly the size of an LA, so you could jam a power plant large enough in there.

In reality, you'd be better served leaving off the extra armour and keeping the vessel light enough to reach the required speeds to keep up with the carrier, which then wouldn't make it much of a battleship anymore.

I think its also a complete stretch to state a theoretical battleship would have exponential firepower over a future theoretical frigate/destroyer/cruiser. Even just looking at modern differences between frigates/destroyers/cruisers, the firepower gap isn't tremendous. An Arleigh is packing maybe a dozen less missiles than a Tyco and one less gun, but the same Harpoon complement and helo complement. European frigates like the FREMM have maybe half the VLS capability, same Harpoon capability, and similar helo complement. This isn't even touching on support systems like torpedoes and sonar systems.

Therefore, its not a simple method of adding up guns and saying one platform is more efficient or a better use of money than multiple smaller ones. Those multiple smaller vessels present multiple threats from multiple angles, all with their own overlapping radar and sonar coverage, with far more air support for OTHT and ASW capability, while theoretically having similar railgun firepower (if we're still hammering on about a weapon system we know very little about, let alone as a practical, tried tested and true weapon system).

Point is, you're not really arguing for a battleship so much as you are a modern cruiser with updated weaponry.

umm, you do know that the Iowa class battleships were just as fast or faster than what the Nimitz class carriers are currently capable of achieving. Heavily armored =/= slow.

 Grey Templar wrote:
umm, you do know that the Iowa class battleships were just as fast or faster than what the Nimitz class carriers are currently capable of achieving. Heavily armored =/= slow.

Oh I'm aware. You're also not considering how much faster and more maneuverable a lighter, less armoured version would be. Plus, do you really think the listed speed value on wiki is the max speed of the carriers? Further, how long would the battleship be able to maintain that speed? Putting that much steel through water at that speed requires a massive amount of fuel, even more than say, a similarly sized warship with less armour.

One of the proven methods of defeating torpedoes is through the use of excessive and specific maneuvers that require agility. A large, heavily armoured ship is that much more vulnerable, when the armour won't be doing much in the first place.

Again, you're hung up on the battleship notion when the modern version would just be an upgunned (or similarly gunned) cruiser.