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.

Tyran wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Offensively - lasers are a long way off. A long way. But defensively lasers are already on the front lines destroying missles and the like. However - much like lasers are destroying missles in battle. Railguns will be able to pick planes right out of the sky because they have such high velocity and as technology get better that velocity is only going to get higher.

Missles will never be obsolete though - soon missles will develope which are much harder to detect. They will likely develope counter messures and possibly split into several smaller missels when under attack to insure they get hits. For accuracy at long range missiles will always be the best - but they will always be the most expensive and easiest to intercept.

That doesn't change that battleships are obsolete. The problem with battleships is that a few hits make them useless, it is the classical example of putting all eggs in one basket. Lasers improve defense, but multiple smaller ships are still much more survivable that one big ship.

You have to understand why battleships became obsolete. It wasn't because they could be destroyed by an aircraft (that's every ship) It's because the range of their primary weapon was beaten several fold by aircraft. Then post WW2 with the invention of guided missiles battleships took another hit in viability. Guns with a range of 30 km just have no value in modern naval arenas. Lets change that up though lets say battleships have an effective range of 400 miles - which is comparable to guided missiles. Suddenly they are viable again.

 Xenomancers wrote:
You have to understand why battleships became obsolete. It wasn't because they could be destroyed by an aircraft (that's every ship) It's because the range of their primary weapon was beaten several fold by aircraft. Then post WW2 with the invention of guided missiles battleships took another hit in viability. Guns with a range of 30 km just have no value in modern naval arenas. Lets change that up though lets say battleships have an effective range of 400 miles - which is comparable to guided missiles. Suddenly they are viable again.

If that was true then we would have missile battleships or battlecruiser, but the closest we have is a Russian large guided missile cruiser.

It is true that basically all ships can be destroyed by aircraft or missiles, which makes large ships even more irrelevant because then any small missile ship can at the very least mission kill a battleship.

ok. ok so a new proposal ..

combing a few things mentioned here we stat off with a nice large armoured hull to protect against lighter missiles and USS Cole attacks etc.

now add the Navy rail guns at 400 mile planned range, with a larger hull like this 40,000 to 50,000 ton range we have space to play with. extra power generation to truly make best use of them.

standard good rack of VLS with cruise, and all the good stuff the bad guys hate, configurable for more sea, ground and air attack load outs.

Now guns need aiming. small drone type hanger maybe, acting as eyes. advanced gun plot computers and a latest gen radar, we can fit a bigger one as big ship.

AA... big weakness.
but
Laser defence and CRAM as close in, plenty of room to mount a mix of VLS and other cells with everything from medium range to maybe even patriot level IV systems capable of stopping a inter ballistic missile in ranges or maybe even bigger anti air weaponry a smaller ship cannot.

combine with a good comms so you can maybe have option of a combined fire solution, using multiple ships as combined AA grid?

not so weak now.

Power and speed, nuclear... powers the rail guns, lasers etc. basic speed, maybe boosted by fuel eneges llike Russian petter the great.

so not slow. target to keep up with a carrier min. maybe faster hopefully.

next. crew, automation brings down crew, rail guns need less loaders etc. 5 inch guns are replaced by modern auto turrets.

that brings down crew.

Lasty as a extra, install enhanced comms and command suite so can act as a command flagship to a battle group, extra room for crew etc,

now its ixed a few weak points. more multi role, and a modern warship for a modern age.

think that's everything but it adds up to a 400 mile gun, missile, strong AA suite warship.

Railguns are not going to have an effective range of 400 miles, especially on a platform that is moving with every wave. You might be able to throw a shell that far, but without some form of guidance system there's no way you're going to be able to aim the gun perfectly enough to hit a target at that distance. And if you're using guided shells the "just cheap inert spikes of metal" advantage over missiles disappears.

Tyran wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
You have to understand why battleships became obsolete. It wasn't because they could be destroyed by an aircraft (that's every ship) It's because the range of their primary weapon was beaten several fold by aircraft. Then post WW2 with the invention of guided missiles battleships took another hit in viability. Guns with a range of 30 km just have no value in modern naval arenas. Lets change that up though lets say battleships have an effective range of 400 miles - which is comparable to guided missiles. Suddenly they are viable again.

If that was true then we would have missile battleships or battlecruiser, but the closest we have is a Russian large guided missile cruiser.

It is true that basically all ships can be destroyed by aircraft or missiles, which makes large ships even more irrelevant because then any small missile ship can at the very least mission kill a battleship.

Which is why its important to actually be able to take a hit, which modern warships simply cannot do.

So called "modern" naval design has suffered a bit, at least for the US, in terms of neglecting durability. We've become complacent and built stuff under the assumption the enemy will never shoot back at our ships, and that we will always have air superiority. Dangerous assumptions to say the least, because when the day comes that they aren't true we'll have problems.

A hypothetical modern battleship(or indeed even the old Iowas) wouldn't be easy to mission kill with a small missile armed vessel. You'd have to get very very lucky with that missile. It would surprise many people to learn that many anti-ship missiles built today would actually have trouble taking out a WW2 era battleship simply because of the armor, modern missiles for shooting ships aren't designed to kill a ship that is actually armored. They're built assuming the tin cans that everybody uses today, not something that is actually armored. As was mentioned earlier in the thread, many anti-ship missiles are designed to explode after penetration, where they simply blow through the thin outer skin of a modern ship with their kinetic energy and then explode. Such a missile would do nothing vs a WW2 era battleship's armor, it would get smashed to pieces and just deflect, and maybe explode on the exterior causing only superficial damage.

Then take on top of that that this hypothetical battleship would have superior armor design relative to a WW2 battleship, similar levels of protection while weighing less. Allowing the vessel to weigh less while also providing better protection. They would also be given more armor on their upper decks and below the water, to shore up the general weaknesses. You could even go for a similar upper deck design to the Zumwalt destroyers, in the sense that you would cover most of the ship in sloped armor instead of having a flat deck over a large area.

A ton of weight would simply be saved by switching to railguns as primary armament. The railgun's would weigh less, as would their ammunition, relative to WW2 cannons. This saved weight would translate into more ammunition storage(ammunition which doesn't have a risk of exploding) or even more armor.

This battleship would also be nuclear powered for obvious reasons. Possibly as many as 3-4 reactors, to power both the Railguns, lasers, and give the vessel extra speed. It bears reminding that the Iowa class weren't actually slow. They were actually faster than the Nimitz class carriers are(Iowa 32.5 kn vs the Nimitz 30 kn)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Railguns are not going to have an effective range of 400 miles, especially on a platform that is moving with every wave. You might be able to throw a shell that far, but without some form of guidance system there's no way you're going to be able to aim the gun perfectly enough to hit a target at that distance. And if you're using guided shells the "just cheap inert spikes of metal" advantage over missiles disappears.

You're somewhat over-obsessing about accuracy. But given the wonderful gyroscopic systems that modern tanks are fitted with, which allow them to maintain a nearly perfectly still gun while still moving at full speed(or even doing donuts), a railgun on a battleship could maintain its target coordinates even with some waves. And sometimes accuracy to within a few meters is just completely unnecessary, though the testing that has been done so far is showing railguns to be extremely accurate.

A ship as large as a battleship also tends to be very very stable in the water. The larger a vessel is, the more stable its platform becomes due to its mass. A battleship would be a very stable platform even in moderately wavy waters. That would actually be a massive advantage over a smaller railgun armed vessel, the battleship would maintain a much more stable firing platform. If WW2 battleships could maintain satisfactory accuracy with their guns, a modern battleship would be able to do even better. Even at long ranges.

Railguns of course would likely have the choice of guided shells for when accuracy is needed. And they would still be exponentially cheaper than a missile, and still have the advantage of "can't be shot down". So no, the advantage doesn't disappear. You are still saving a massive amount of $$$ by not using a missile.

 Grey Templar wrote:


A hypothetical modern battleship(or indeed even the old Iowas) wouldn't be easy to mission kill with a small missile armed vessel. You'd have to get very very lucky with that missile. It would surprise many people to learn that many anti-ship missiles built today would actually have trouble taking out a WW2 era battleship simply because of the armor, modern missiles for shooting ships aren't designed to kill a ship that is actually armored. They're built assuming the tin cans that everybody uses today, not something that is actually armored. As was mentioned earlier in the thread, many anti-ship missiles are designed to explode after penetration, where they simply blow through the thin outer skin of a modern ship with their kinetic energy and then explode. Such a missile would do nothing vs a WW2 era battleship's armor, it would get smashed to pieces and just deflect, and maybe explode on the exterior causing only superficial damage.

You don't need to sink a battleship to mission kill it. It doesn't matter that a missile cannot penetrate the armor of the battleship, because it can easily take the radar. Without the radar, the battleship can do nothing except go home.

Battleships are absurdly hard to sink, but are hilariously easy to mission kill.

Tyran wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


A hypothetical modern battleship(or indeed even the old Iowas) wouldn't be easy to mission kill with a small missile armed vessel. You'd have to get very very lucky with that missile. It would surprise many people to learn that many anti-ship missiles built today would actually have trouble taking out a WW2 era battleship simply because of the armor, modern missiles for shooting ships aren't designed to kill a ship that is actually armored. They're built assuming the tin cans that everybody uses today, not something that is actually armored. As was mentioned earlier in the thread, many anti-ship missiles are designed to explode after penetration, where they simply blow through the thin outer skin of a modern ship with their kinetic energy and then explode. Such a missile would do nothing vs a WW2 era battleship's armor, it would get smashed to pieces and just deflect, and maybe explode on the exterior causing only superficial damage.

You don't need to sink a battleship to mission kill it. It doesn't matter that a missile cannot penetrate the armor of the battleship, because it can easily take the radar. Without the radar, the battleship can do nothing except go home.

Battleships are absurdly hard to sink, but are hilariously easy to mission kill.

Considering that each turret of the Iowa held it's fire control radar, you'd have to destroy each turret to mission kill the thing.

You don't build these types of machines with a single point of failure. Redundancy after redundancy.

Battle Cruiser or Pocket Battleship ..In the US arsenal its called the Zumwalt class Destroyer..it has as much fire power as the Alaska Class from WWII with plenty of AA and ASW to boot..
oh and the Gun range is farther than the Harpoon class anti ship missiles..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer

morfydd wrote:
Battle Cruiser or Pocket Battleship ..In the US arsenal its called the Zumwalt class Destroyer..it has as much fire power as the Alaska Class from WWII with plenty of AA and ASW to boot..
oh and the Gun range is farther than the Harpoon class anti ship missiles..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer

Its also a good example of "the cost is too damn high!"

Honestly, I feel that the US is somewhat falling into the same trap the Germans fell into during WW2. Over-engineering and overspending on stuff.

Zumwalt also can't take a hit at all. its 100% reliant on not being seen, but thats not always possible.

 djones520 wrote:


Considering that each turret of the Iowa held it's fire control radar, you'd have to destroy each turret to mission kill the thing.

You don't build these types of machines with a single point of failure. Redundancy after redundancy.

The radars weren't inside turrets and they weren't armored.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also it isn't as if building anti-battleship missiles is impossible

The first guided weapon, which wasn't even a missile, two shot a battleship. One wonders what we could do with a modern missile designed to break a battleship in two.

morfydd wrote:
Battle Cruiser or Pocket Battleship ..In the US arsenal its called the Zumwalt class Destroyer..it has as much fire power as the Alaska Class from WWII with plenty of AA and ASW to boot..
oh and the Gun range is farther than the Harpoon class anti ship missiles..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer

So the $2.8 billion Zumwalt is comparable to the $100 million Alaska?

 Peregrine wrote:
Railguns are not going to have an effective range of 400 miles, especially on a platform that is moving with every wave. You might be able to throw a shell that far, but without some form of guidance system there's no way you're going to be able to aim the gun perfectly enough to hit a target at that distance. And if you're using guided shells the "just cheap inert spikes of metal" advantage over missiles disappears.

Railgun range is literally limitless. 400 is a reasonable goal for 10 years from now. In 20 probably capable of 1000. There is no limit other than light speed to how fast you can fire a slug out of a railgun. After a certain point though the munitions will have to be guided because variable at these ranges will be too much to overcome - which will present new challenges but make the weapon even more deadly. It doesn't need to be more than 400 miles to completely change naval warfare ether.

 Xenomancers wrote:
There is no limit other than light speed to how fast you can fire a slug out of a railgun.

Except you know, air resistance and recoil.

And energy costs. And the amount of force the projectile it'self can withstand.

It may not literally be limitless, but practically speaking Railguns will likely top out at "any point on the planet" once you gain enough power to send the slug into orbit, which will be within all our lifetimes. At which point even without guidance you could target anywhere in the world with the right angle and velocity. Railguns like that would probably be put in buildings instead of on ships though since you don't need to move at that point to get range.

 Grey Templar wrote:
At which point even without guidance you could target anywhere in the world with the right angle and velocity.

No, you can't. ICBMs manage to work over that distance because nuclear warheads don't need precision accuracy. An inert lump of metal is not going to be anywhere near accurate enough over that distance to be a useful weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Railgun range is literally limitless. 400 is a reasonable goal for 10 years from now. In 20 probably capable of 1000. There is no limit other than light speed to how fast you can fire a slug out of a railgun. After a certain point though the munitions will have to be guided because variable at these ranges will be too much to overcome - which will present new challenges but make the weapon even more deadly. It doesn't need to be more than 400 miles to completely change naval warfare ether.

Again, it's not about how far you can physically throw the shell, it's about effective range. An ordinary pistol can send a bullet out to some pretty extreme ranges if you fire at a 45* angle like an artillery gun, but you aren't going to hit anything except by sheer luck. Over 400 mile range slight aim errors from things like the gears to turn the gun being 0.001" off result in shots missing the target. And with a gun mounted on a ship that is constantly moving from waves, engine vibration, etc, accuracy at 400 miles is going to be so poor that there's no point in wasting a shell.

Well, given that the designers of the Railgun have explicitly used 400 miles as a future potential range, I would think that you are clearly wrong. If they think they can hit something that far away with a railgun in the near future, they're probably on to something. We're not just making stuff up here. The people working on the actual railgun have said 400 miles is on the table as a potential figure. And really, potentially you could with enough math figure out what angle and velocity would be needed to launch a projectile anywhere in the world.

Would such a worldwide railgun shot use guided projectiles? Most likely. But theoretically an unguided shot could also be made with the proper math. And even if you had to use guided projectiles, it would still be way cheaper than a missile.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well, given that the designers of the Railgun have explicitly used 400 miles as a future potential range, I would think that you are clearly wrong.

You do know that people with a product to sell often over-hype it to get sales, right? Given the fact that this hypothetical 400 mile railgun is nowhere close to existing I don't think the claim should be taken too seriously.

And really, potentially you could with enough math figure out what angle and velocity would be needed to launch a projectile anywhere in the world.

Again, it's not about doing the math, it's about things preventing perfect execution of this theoretical shot. At that range even very slight errors result in huge deviations from the target point, and you can't account for things like slight errors in the aiming mechanism, different winds along the shell's route, etc. Doing the math on a ballistic trajectory is easy but you still aren't going to hit anything at 400 miles.

And even if you had to use guided projectiles, it would still be way cheaper than a missile.

{citation needed}

Yes, you save money by not having to pay for the missile's engine, but now you have to build (and pay for) a guidance system that can survive the stress of firing. It's quite possible that the cost savings will not be that great, or even that the guided railgun shell will cost more than a missile with equivalent range and firepower.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
There is no limit other than light speed to how fast you can fire a slug out of a railgun.

Theoretically? No, no limit. From a practical engineering point of view? There's absolutely a limit, and we're seeing it right now with the difficulty in keeping the rails intact for more than one shot. The more energy you put into the shot the more of a problem this becomes.

One thing that comes to mind though - if the railgun promises to become such a powerful weapon, will the ships carrying one also have to fear it? A battleship might not be significantly easier to hit than a destroyer in a big ocean, but will it have armor able to withstand a hit from something like a 20 kg tungsten rod that moves at Mach 7?

Since this could be cheaper than a missile there's no sense in not checking if you could use it against naval assets, right?

IMHO the battleship of old will be used as support role, mobile artillery, or as a railgun weapon where it will be used as a deterrent.

Just to point out, the folks worjing on the railgun are talking about guided shells as a part of the development process.

So yes, if they can get them going, they will be accurate.

No, the shells will not be as cheap as an inert heavy metal rod.

Yes, the shells should still be cheaper than missiles if they can figure out how to make an electronics package that can survive launch.

The complete weapon system is likely to be far more expensive than a complete missile launching system however. Reloading it will just be cheaper.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
IMHO the battleship of old will be used as support role, mobile artillery, or as a railgun weapon where it will be used as a deterrent.

I think it will be both.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

morfydd wrote:
Battle Cruiser or Pocket Battleship ..In the US arsenal its called the Zumwalt class Destroyer..it has as much fire power as the Alaska Class from WWII with plenty of AA and ASW to boot..
oh and the Gun range is farther than the Harpoon class anti ship missiles..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer

Its also a good example of "the cost is too damn high!"

Honestly, I feel that the US is somewhat falling into the same trap the Germans fell into during WW2. Over-engineering and overspending on stuff.

Zumwalt also can't take a hit at all. its 100% reliant on not being seen, but thats not always possible.

I disagree with you about armor. Armor today is really only effective against small arms. Instead I'd say building a ship that can take a hit has a lot more to do with construction than armor. Having good backup systems, solid bulkhead designs, and good damage control systems will be far more effective and less burdensome than armor. Not to mention having the best air intercepting systems. 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.

It's interesting to me though - this discussion had me thinking about the german super gun that was built in france - the "V3". It was destroyed before it was operational but had it been - london would have been brought to ruins. The battery of guns had a range of about 120 miles (these were tested at another site - they worked). I feel like a battleship with railguns would function in much the same way - except it would be mobile and provide huge amounts of AA coverage for a fleet. It's scary to think of. A ship like this would basically force nuclear war on an opponent because there would be no other option.

While thats definitely true for the Germans, they were definitely also victims of over-engineering. Their vehicles were too complicated for what needed to be done, especially in terms of cost and logistical support(like repairs).

The Railgun would indeed be much like a mobile V3(without the danger of it blowing itself up).

Armor isn't really only effective vs small arms. The Abrams tank is somewhat famously incapable of penetrating its own armor. 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).

 Grey Templar wrote:
While thats definitely true for the Germans, they were definitely also victims of over-engineering. Their vehicles were too complicated for what needed to be done, especially in terms of cost and logistical support(like repairs).

The Railgun would indeed be much like a mobile V3(without the danger of it blowing itself up).

Armor isn't really only effective vs small arms. The Abrams tank is somewhat famously incapable of penetrating its own armor. 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).

Advances in armor are probably going to be some kind of graphine coating. The stuff is supposedly 200 times stronger than steel (it's literally a hexagonal sheet of atomic bonds) the aren't quite there yet though. To actually produce the stuff on the scale of a ship or to be able to coat one with a thin layer of it...hard to say they have it in our lifetimes. It's safe to say that when they do figure it out - we will have a material that could reasonably be used as armor against a railgun.

I highly doubt a abrams could take an AP round from it's own gun except at extreme angles and ranges. From what I've learned the AP round from an abrams. Is that it can penetrate any armor that is thinner than it's round is long. Roughly 24". This is similar to what a railgun will fire. Except it will fire it at 10x + the speed.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
While thats definitely true for the Germans, they were definitely also victims of over-engineering. Their vehicles were too complicated for what needed to be done, especially in terms of cost and logistical support(like repairs).

The Railgun would indeed be much like a mobile V3(without the danger of it blowing itself up).

Armor isn't really only effective vs small arms. The Abrams tank is somewhat famously incapable of penetrating its own armor. 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).

Advances in armor are probably going to be some kind of graphine coating. The stuff is supposedly 200 times stronger than steel (it's literally a hexagonal sheet of atomic bonds) the aren't quite there yet though. To actually produce the stuff on the scale of a ship or to be able to coat one with a thin layer of it...hard to say they have it in our lifetimes. It's safe to say that when they do figure it out - we will have a material that could reasonably be used as armor against a railgun.

I highly doubt a abrams could take an AP round from it's own gun except at extreme angles and ranges. From what I've learned the AP round from an abrams. Is that it can penetrate any armor that is thinner than it's round is long. Roughly 24". This is similar to what a railgun will fire. Except it will fire it at 10x + the speed.

Some tanks have already taken to using carbon plating to decrease weight, the Type 10 for example. It has a whole slew of situational armour sets, using a lot of carbon plating. It's expensive as feth, but the Japanese need it so that their tanks can operate on their infrastructure (which has far lower weight limits). And the tanks need to be easily trasnportable between the islands. This was actualy a big problem with the Type 90, it could only really operate on the largest island because of it's size and weight.
Seriously though, the Type 10 is a cool tank. It can go 70 km/h backwards and forwards, and fire on the move accurately while doing so. Never seen battle though, so it's known limitations are based solely on test data.


As far as the Abrams, there is that story floated around of a tank platoon that couldn't scuttle one of their tanks that was stuck in terrain (I think it was stuck in a muddy ditch or something) because of the reactive armour, but I don't know how credible that is. It also might have the the M1, not the M1A1 or M1A2, which had a 105mm gun, rather than the ubiquitous reinmetal 120mm.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
While thats definitely true for the Germans, they were definitely also victims of over-engineering. Their vehicles were too complicated for what needed to be done, especially in terms of cost and logistical support(like repairs).

The Railgun would indeed be much like a mobile V3(without the danger of it blowing itself up).

Armor isn't really only effective vs small arms. The Abrams tank is somewhat famously incapable of penetrating its own armor. 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).

Advances in armor are probably going to be some kind of graphine coating. The stuff is supposedly 200 times stronger than steel (it's literally a hexagonal sheet of atomic bonds) the aren't quite there yet though. To actually produce the stuff on the scale of a ship or to be able to coat one with a thin layer of it...hard to say they have it in our lifetimes. It's safe to say that when they do figure it out - we will have a material that could reasonably be used as armor against a railgun.

I highly doubt a abrams could take an AP round from it's own gun except at extreme angles and ranges. From what I've learned the AP round from an abrams. Is that it can penetrate any armor that is thinner than it's round is long. Roughly 24". This is similar to what a railgun will fire. Except it will fire it at 10x + the speed.

The Abrams can indeed survive its own gun. I recall a situation during I think it was either Iraq or maybe the Gulf War? when an Abrams got bogged down somewhere, so the tank group decided they needed to abandon it. They tried to destroy it with another Abrams, but were unable to penetrate the armor. So they were forced to use explosives inside the Abrams itself.

As I recall when the wreckage of said tank was recovered, they just needed to replace the turret and it was fully operational.

On the other hand, at least 1 Abrams was KOd by the 25mm of a Bradly Fighting Vehicle during a friendly fire incident, which just goes to show that nothing can be made invulnerable to a lucky hit.

Well yeah. Anything can potentially happen. but thats why those events are so odd, they are unlikely to occur.

I've read reports of M1A1 armor bouncing an AP sabot in desert storm off the frontal turret armor (that is where it is the thickest) range wasn't mentioned. It was a friendly fire incident though so likely a pretty long range shot. Several times M1A1 took AP hits in the side of the turret and in side armor and were completely destroyed (from other M1A1's). Pretty dang impressive stuff though - this tank is a mack daddy.

Back more on topic though. Tanks are armored because it makes sense for them to be armored. As a close infantry support vehicle - they are going to be around a lot of small arms fire which they are immune to. A modern battleship has no reason to be in range of anything that can hurt it - so armor would probably be just slowing it down. It's defense against things that can hurt it at long range will be counter-measures and interceptors and aircraft - in the end no amount of armor is going to protect you from a torpedo/tactical nuke/ or anti-ship missile.

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.